Tag Archives: goonan

Free Speech in HOAs: protected in NJ, not in FL?

guest blog by Deborah Goonan

As the 2016 Presidential election campaign heats up, so do political sign controversies in homeowners associations. Here’s a perfect example from Florida, a dispute over a Hillary Clinton sign in a resident’s window.

Help Me Howard, Channel 7 WSVN, on political signs in your HOA(1)

Howard Finkelstein (2) is Public Defender for Broward County in Florida, but he moonlights as a legal analyst for the local Fox News affiliate. According to Finkelstein’s analysis, an HOA can deny a resident’s right to display a political sign as long as their documents are “written correctly,” and if the homeowner took this to court, she would “probably lose.” However, an HOA cannot allow some types of political signs (such as the one we see in the video about gun ownership rights) and not others ( a sign supporting Hillary Clinton).

That would be Selective Enforcement: that’s the kind of inconsistency that gets HOA Boards in trouble, the kind of stuff that leads to billable hours to the Association attorney to defend the indefensible. Guess who pays for this folly? Why, that would be all the homeowners.

Of course, Howard brings up the standard argument that because it is not the government, a private HOA can make up rules prohibiting signs. Or, as I like to say, the standard industry claim is that the Bill of Rights Need Not Apply, including your guarantee to Free Speech under the First Amendment.

But, is that absolutely true or is subject to interpretation?

Recent Case Law opens the door for future challenges

In 2012, the NJ Supreme Court, in Mazdabrook vs. Khan(3) ruled that an Association’s restriction against placing a political sign inside a condo unit’s window was unconstitutional under state law. Of course, the facts in Mazdabrook bear a striking resemblance to the action taken by Valencia Morris at The Enclave at Cutler Bay. Ms. Morris was threatened with a fine if she did not remove the small political sign she had placed on the inside of her unit’s window.

More recently, in 2014, in Dublirer vs 2000 Linwood Avenue Owners (4), the NJ Supreme Court upheld that the Association violated the state’s Constitution when it denied the owner of a Fort Lee Co-op the right to distribute campaign leaflets as he contemplated running for a seat on the Board.

In both cases, the NJ Supreme Court ruled that even a private organization such as an Association-Governed Residential Association, cannot restrict “too much speech” and rejected legal arguments for the Associations that a homeowner “gives up” Constitutional rights by taking title to an HOA property.

Now, some FL attorneys will argue that the NJ Constitution offers greater protection of rights involving private organizations. So let’s compare the two state Constitutions on the issue of free speech.

New Jersey Constitution, article I (5)

6. Every person may freely speak, write and publish his sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right. No law shall be passed to restrain or abridge the liberty of speech or of the press. In all prosecutions or indictments for libel, the truth may be given in evidence to the jury; and if it shall appear to the jury that the matter charged as libelous is true, and was published with good motives and for justifiable ends, the party shall be acquitted; and the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the fact.

Florida Constitution, Article I (6)

SECTION 4. Freedom of speech and press.—Every person may speak, write and publish sentiments on all subjects but shall be responsible for the abuse of that right. No law shall be passed to restrain or abridge the liberty of speech or of the press. In all criminal prosecutions and civil actions for defamation the truth may be given in evidence. If the matter charged as defamatory is true and was published with good motives, the party shall be acquitted or exonerated.

Now, I’m not an attorney, but these two provisions seem to say essentially the same thing.

Are the winds of change blowing?

Allow me to leave the reader with one final thought, courtesy of the First Amendment Center at the Newseum Institute. In their recent survey (7), they asked: Does the First Amendment go too far in the rights it guarantees? Below you can see the results. (click on the graphic to enlarge)

image

Looking at perceptions of First Amendment rights for different age groups, it’s quite clear that younger generations are not going to put up with private corporate HOAs restricting speech! Time is on our side.

 

References:

ADDITIONAL:

Florida HOA Update: Mostly Bad News

guest blog by Deborah Goonan

Spencer’s Plantation homeowners association is in the midst of conflict, according to a report from First Coast News, Jacksonville.

Defunct developer, Mercedes Homes, ended business operations in 2012. Since that time, SPHOA’s Board leadership has changed several times, dwindling from 5 members a few years ago to only 2 members as of June 2015. The management company has been changed twice, most recently a few weeks ago, according to public records.

According to the report, the new Board has been aggressively pursuing homeowners for various minor covenant violations, issuing hefty fines. A search of the Clay County Clerk’s database confirms that the past 2-3 years have seen a fair amount of activity, with the HOA filing liens upon properties that were later paid and satisfied by those owners.

Recall attempts by homeowners have failed to remove the Board President and Treasurer, and it looks like the matter will now have to go to arbitration with Florida’s Division of Business and Professional regulation (DBPR).

Do low annual assessments = fewer HOA conflicts?

One fact that caught my eye in the news report: Spencer’s Plantation includes 222 homes, with annual assements of only $250. Reading the Declarations online, this HOA’s common areas consist of a few storm water “lakes” and a small green space. This is a relatively small, no-frills HOA, especially for Florida.

There is sometimes a misconception that HOAs with minimal common area maintenance and low annual fees are somehow less of a hassle than elaborate gated communities with golf courses, club houses, pools, and the like.

But when I read through the Covenants, Conditions, & Restrictions (CC&Rs) for Spencer’s Plantation, I noticed that the Use Restrictions and aesthetics standards — what I like to call “Keeping Up Appearances” — or KUA Rules, are every bit as elaborate as those fancy master planned communities such as Celebration or The Villages.

So that means that the HOA Board can, and often does, end up with a few members who are gung-ho on enforcing those elaborate rules to the letter. And often, there is a property management company and an HOA attorney aiding and abetting those efforts. After all, these “service” providers make a living as HOA Enforcers.

Apparently, that’s what’s going on at Spencer’s Plantation, according to the homeowners that contacted First Coast New. It’s a familiar story that we hear about over and over again.

Don’t be fooled by the size or simplicity of the community. Be sure to read all of the CC&Rs, plus any related Rules and Regulations, very carefully. Better yet, hire a qualified real estate attorney to represent your interests from the time you execute a sale contract through closing. If reading and understanding the fine print and details raises red flags, better to walk away before the deal is done!

Read the story on First Coast News here:

 

Your Frickin’ Frackin’ HOA Rights!

guest blog by Deborah Goonan

Did you know that when you purchase a home — either new construction or resale — you might not own the rights to mineral resources beneath that home? If not, then you must take the time to read Reuters 2013 Special Report: US Builders hoard mineral rights under new homes, linked below.(1)

It may seem unbelievable, and might never have crossed your mind, that the builder of your home would write into the deed and sale agreement that mineral rights would not convey to the homeowner. What this means is that if there should be oil, gas, gold, or any other valuable resource lurking in the soil beneath your home, you would have NO rights to compensation for withdrawal of those resources. In fact, whoever holds those mineral rights — be it the developer or an energy company that has acquired those rights from the Developer — has the legal right to drill under your property and take those minerals, whether you like it or not. And because you don’t own these rights, you won’t be making any money on the deal, even though you’ll assume all the risks involved during the drilling or “fracking” process that is sweeping across the country.

And quite often, the developer does not openly disclose that the buyer gives up property rights, including mineral rights. Most buyers find out either at closing or thereafter. The fact that most new construction is part of a homeowners’ association makes it easy for the builders to bundle these mineral rights and then lease or sell them to a third party, often without the homeowners’ knowledge or explicit consent.

Below, you can follow links to two June 2015 reports on fracking: one from the EPA concluding that contamination of water supplies is “isolated,” (2) and another news release from the University of Pittsburgh, citing a study of the correlation between proximity of pregnant women to fracking activity and lower birth weights of their babies (3). But there are literally hundreds of news reports, and dozens of studies have been done on the subject. The oil and gas industry and the EPA tend to downplay the risks, while environmental activists tend to play up exposure to human health risks as a result of air, soil, and groundwater pollution.

For all of these reasons, when homeowners in North Carolina and Florida became aware of developer mineral rights hoarding practice, they demanded action from their Attorneys General. In both states, homebuilder DR Horton agreed to return mineral rights to homeowners in 2013. (4)

In Colorado, developers such as Lennar have incorporated mineral rights companies (5) as subsidiaries of their homebuilding corporation. In Weld County, drilling activity has been going on for several years just outside of Rinn Valley HOA. A 2011 report features Rinn Valley homeowners who have lived through the noise and disturbance of gigantic heavy equipment during the 24/7 drilling process, within 500 feet of their back yard. Now homeowners have to contend with unsightly tanks and round-the-clock trucks that collect gas, oil, and wastewater and haul it away. It’s way more intrusive than most homeowners ever imagined. (6)

Plus, there may be hidden risks. A CBS report on Colorado’s 2013 flooding highlights flood waters wreaking havoc on tanks at drill sites – tanks containing oil and toxic chemicals used in the fracking process. (7) Some of those tanks sat mighty close to Rinn Valley. Could fracking activity, combined with flood damage, have played a role in soil and foundation problems for Rinn Valley homeowners, where Lennar is currently involved in construction defect disputes? Maybe. Maybe not. Hopefully there will be some competent experts working on behalf of homeowners to determine the extent and cause of these defects.

As a home buyer, the best way to protect your interests is to thoroughly research the developer and to hire a competent real estate attorney to represent your interests from the point you sign a sale agreement through closing. Your attorney can examine the deed and provide title insurance, disclosing any irregularities to you before you get to the closing table with the moving van already packed to the gills. Do not allow the developer’s or mortgage lender’s title company to represent you at closing!

References:

1 Reuters Special Report: US Builders hoard mineral rights under new homes

2 EPA study shows Marcellus Shale fracking doesn’t cause widespread water pollution

3 Study cites lower birth weights near fracking – Pitt health study finds correlation

4 DR Horton Returns Homeowners’ Mineral Rights

5 Lennar Colorado Minerals LLC incorporate 2011

6 Gas drilling and fracking occurred adjacent to Rinn Valley Ranch (2011)

7 CBS News report on Colorado flooding and its effects on fracking sites (Video)

 

Oh, That Sinking Feeling When Your Builder Walks Away!

guest blog by Deborah Goonan

Let’s face it. There is no shortage of construction defect reports for many homes built in the past decade, and Colorado homeowners seem to have more than their share of shoddy construction.

The focus in the news lately has been on condominiums, with city leaders bucking state law to go around legal protections for homeowners, claiming that if they do not ease up on construction standards, developers won’t be able to build enough “affordable” condos for first-time buyers.

Well, here’s a story of apparent construction defects affecting some pricey single family homes on the outskirts of Frederick, roughly 30 miles north of Denver. It seems Dr. Robert Landry, a veterinarian, his wife and two small children have had to move out of their home. Landry alleges that the family’s Lennar-built “forever home” is uninhabitable, because the foundation is sinking into soft soil, allowing moisture and mold build up, buckling wood floors, and kitchen counters pulling away from the walls.

The homeowner hired an engineer to examine the foundation and crawl space, and to conduct soil testing. The results of recent soil tests indicate that the soil is too soft to support construction of a home. Lennar claims that soil testing done in 2006 indicated a drastically different soil composition that was deemed suitable for construction.

However, in 2013, Colorado saw historic flooding, and Weld County – where Landry’s home is located – was particularly hard hit. Additionally, Frederick has a history of coal mining activity, and in recent years, nearby land has become the site of oil and gas drilling, and the controversial practice of fracking. (the subject of another blog) Several of Landry’s neighbors report similar damage to their homes.

A Google search of Lennar Homes in Frederick indicates the company is no longer building homes in Rinn Valley HOA, the site of Landry’s home. Landry has approached the Town of Frederick and the HOA for assistance, before bringing his story to local media.

Landry contends that new soil testing should have been done following the 2013 floods, prior to breaking ground on his home and others nearby. He questions why the Town of Frederick approved construction and issued occupancy permits for homes built on shifting soils, particularly without drilling deep piers into bedrock to support their foundations. The inspection officer admits that the Town’s policy is to simply accept the Developer’s reports, signed by the builder’s own engineers.

This is common practice in many states – the local government’s development planning officials are mostly paper pushers. As long as the Developer files the required reports with signatures, the project is good to go. And many site inspections are either conducted by the Developer’s chosen experts, or, if conducted by the city or county, such inspections are cursory at best.

In other words, as a home buyer, no one is looking out for your interests.

To add insult to injury, the Attorney hired by Landry says that it is impossible for homeowners to sue Lennar, because the Developer requires arbitration to settle construction defect disputes. Those consumer-hostile terms were written into the sales contracts for all homebuyers. (Similar terms are most likely written into the governing documents for the homeowners association, with regard to defects that occur in the common areas.)

Landry and his neighbors hope to convince Lennar to buy back their homes, so they can move on with their lives.

Source articles and video:

(homeowner blames builder for sinking house)

(earlier report, Shifting Soil Damages Brand New Home in Frederick)

(March 2015, Dr. Robert Landry asks for assistance from Town of Frederick with Rinn Valley homes)

(Rinn Valley Ranch HOA)

Raisin Farmers, Homeowners Associations & The Supreme Court

guest blog by Deborah Goonan

When I read Evan Bernick’s (Assistant Director at the Institute for Justice) summary of the latest Supreme Court decision involving property rights of raisin farmers, I was taken aback by the parallels to a decades-long battle to protect property rights of homeowners in private, mandatory Homeowners Associations.

In HORNE ET AL. v. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, family farmers Marvin and Laura Horne of California were ordered to surrender 30% of their raisin crop to the federal government. Based upon a New Deal Era law, as part of an effort to control raisin prices, the Raisin Administrative Committee would take a portion of the growers’ crops, without immediate compensation. Once the raisin reserve was sold many months later, on terms negotiated by the Committee, any remaining proceeds would be distributed back to the farmers. Seems unfair, right?

When the Hornes refused to turn over their raisins, the government fined them $480,000, the claimed value of the raisins, plus a $200,000 “disobedience” penalty. The matter ended up in court. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found in favor of the federal government. As Bernick explains:

“It reasoned that the Takings Clause affords more protection to real property (land) than it does to personal property (in this case, raisins). In addition, it characterized the reserve requirement as a “condition” imposed in exchange for a government benefit (that is, the privilege of engaging in commercial activity), rather than a taking, adding that the Hornes could always avoid the requirement by “planting different crops.”

Let me pause for moment and point out the parallels faced by HOA property owners.

With regard to HOA issues, courts thus far have reasoned that the Takings Clause affords more protection to real propertyoutside of a mandatory association than it does to real property inside an HOA, where mandatory association membership is required. In addition, payment of assessments, imposition of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs)  – no matter how unnecessary, unconscionable, or unreasonable – and resulting fines or other penalties imposed for violations of those CC&Rs, are conditions imposed in exchange for the special “privilege” and “benefit” of owning a home in a Developer-designed architectural utopia. And, as we hear over and over again, homeowners unhappy with that arrangement are free to avoid CC&Rs by buying a home that is not burdened by a mandatory HOA.

But in many major real estate markets in the US these days, buyers with price and location constraints have few non-HOA alternatives. The choice is to purchase a home in a mandatory HOA, or give up the American Dream of homeownership.

OK, now read on for the good news.

The Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit’s decision, recognizing that the conditions imposed by the federal government were an unconstitutional Taking without just compensation.

To quote Evan Bernick, the court’s decision rested on three principles:

“The Supreme Court began by roundly (and rightly) rejecting the Ninth Circuit’s distinction between personal and real property. The language of the Takings Clause is broad and categorical and reflects the Framers’ appreciation of the centrality of all private property to a free and thriving civil society. It requires “just compensation” whenever the government appropriates “private property” for a “public use…”

 “The Court … found that the Raisin Committee’s deprivation of the growers’ rights in their property was total–they lost the rights to possess, use, and dispose of their raisins … Once there is a taking, the Court held, there is a duty to pay just compensation that the government may not evade.”

“Finally, in response to the argument that the Hornes could always avoid the reserve requirement by planting other crops, the Court affirmed an essential principle: engaging in commerce is not a “special governmental benefit that the Government may hold hostage, to be ransomed by the waiver of constitutional protection.”

For 5 decades, local governments have strongly encouraged or mandated the establishment of over 333,000 HOAs across the US. Mandatory homeowners’ associations are regarded as “mini-governments” by many state and local politicians. Indeed, they serve the public purpose of maintaining infrastructure and governing use of private property, thereby relieving local governments of those duties. Government has created homeowners associations by virtue of statute, mainly for its own benefit.

In Florida alone, many owners continue to endure takings of their homes without just compensation. For several years, we have witnessed hostile HOA Board takeovers, often resulting in termination of condominium associations for the purpose of redevelopment or de-conversion to rental apartments.  The terminations have resulted in the forced sale of tens of thousands of units at artificially low appraised values – unjust compensation following inadequate due process for owners to contest the terms of the sale.

Why have homeowners have been forced to accept this injustice? Because the courts have failed to recognize link to Florida Statute 718.117 as a state-sanctioned taking by private investors for the supposed public purpose of “rescuing” distressed condo associations, thereby preserving the property tax base for local governments. By allowing private developers to exploit condo owners, local governments are also relieved of their duty to intervene when HOAs fail miserably. These are the very same HOAs that were approved by local land use planning agencies.

And, in a more broad sense, what about other rights to use property that have been taken by HOAs? For instance, HOAs commonly restrict the right to rent to tenants, or operate a home-based business. Where is the just compensation to homeowners? How is it that HOAs, essentially state-endorsed substitute mini-governments, are not obligated to honor the Constitutional rights of Americans to full use and enjoyment of their property?

Owning a home is not a “special government benefit” that the Government – or its agent HOA – can “hold hostage,” at the cost of giving up one’s Constitutional rights.

Are we yet another step closer to obtaining equal protection for all Americans, whether they live inside or outside the boundaries of an HOA?

Aren’t our homes at least as valuable as a farmer’s raisin harvest?