Tag Archives: goonan

HOAs often pit Investors vs. Homeowners, and homeowners usually lose

      3 Comments on HOAs often pit Investors vs. Homeowners, and homeowners usually lose
guest blog by Deborah Goonan
Even in the nation’s Heartland, homeowners’ and condo associations are subject to considerable consumer risk. The Des Moines Register story highlights just one example of what happens when investors take over an Association, a common occurrence across the country.

Here’s the blatant truth. The corporate structure of HOAs — allocating voting rights to the Property instead of allocating those rights to People based upon residency — leads to the inevitable consequence of pitting investors against homestead property owners.

Because an HOA property owner gains voting rights for EACH property owned, it creates the incentive for investors or developers to buy up – or retain – as many “shares” of the HOA corporation as possible. And everyone knows that a majority shareholder controls a corporation.

But not everyone realizes that nearly all HOAs are corporations. Share this story with everyone you know, especially if they are considering buying a home.

We need to decide in this country: are homes a place to live and gradually accumulate stable personal wealth over time, or are they merely investment commodities subject to the whims of a volatile real estate market – where a few people profit at the expense of everyone else?

(link to warning in Des Moines Register)

 

Stealing Homes In Indiana

      No Comments on Stealing Homes In Indiana
guest blog by Deborah Goonan

Last year, residents of Charlestown, Indiana, thwarted an eminent domain attempt initiated by Mayor Bob Hall to allow developers to buy out, raze, and redevelop their entire Pleasant Ridge neighborhood. With pro bono assistance from Institute for Justice, and a well-organized effort, residents were able to put an end to those plans, and keep their homes.

Pleasant Ridge is still in need of improvement, however, and owners want to work with the Mayor on alternative plans to reduce crime and clean up problem properties. Therefore, several neighborhood leaders have proposed establishing a steering committee, to work with the Mayor’s office on revitalizing their Pleasant Ridge neighborhood. Mayor Hall has been asked to serve on the Board of this steering committee, along with one other representative from his staff.

But Mayor Hall has reservations about working with the Neighborhood Association.

Check out this statement made by the Mayor:

“Hall said Wednesday that the neighborhood association and the steering committee represent too few residents of the neighborhood.

“They are more of a special-interest group than they are a homeowners association,” Hall said of the neighborhood association. “They only represent less than 15 percent of the property owners in Pleasant Ridge. A real homeowner’s association will represent 100 percent of the properties in a subdivision.”

Hall said he has made efforts to revitalize the neighborhood since 2000, and it’s important to him that the area improves.

“I am not the mayor of the minority of Pleasant Ridge, I am the mayor of the whole city,” he said. “I am not going to be involved in a committee that has a very narrow focus and is only representing a very small interest.”

Recall from my previous blogs that the Mayor’s plans for redevelopment, though never solidified, included multifamily structures and mixed use development. In other words: establishment of Homeowners’ Associations. Apparently, Hall thinks mandatory membership HOAs would better represent owners’ interests than a voluntary membership resident-supported Neighborhood Association. Where on earth did he get that idea?

Apparently someone has been drinking the Kool-Aid, courtesy of HOA Industry special interest groups representing Community Associations and Developers.

Obviously, Mr. Hall hasn’t got a clue about the realities of HOAs! Although 100% of owners are required to be members, that does not mean that the HOA actually “represents 100 percent of the properties in a subdivision!” Note the use of the word “properties” with regard to representation — not “homeowners” or “people.”

Ask any minority property owner in an HOA if his or her interests are represented, or if those interests are merely outnumbered by majority stakeholders.

And as for having a “very narrow focus” and “only representing a very small interest,” — well, that’s the norm for HOAs. And the people of Pleasant Ridge weren’t very happy about the Mayor’s previous attempts to align himself with the narrow interests of the developer, who, along with the Mayor, wanted to get his hands on grant money.

So who is representing the interests of the homeowners in Pleasant Ridge at this point? At the last City Council meeting, neighborhood association representative Jason Patrone reportedly seemed to have the support of neighbors in attendance.

Let’s see how this one plays out.

(link to Charlestown News and Tribune)

 

Repeal of Nevada HOA statute?

      6 Comments on Repeal of Nevada HOA statute?
guest blog by Deborah Goonan

From the state that brought us the largest HOA federal fraud investigation EVER, now this:

Ira Hansen, a Nevada Republican Assemblyman, recently filed AB233, a proposal to repeal NV Statute 116, the statute governing homeowners’ associations. The intent, according to Hansen, is to delegate regulation to a lower level state agency, such as a commission on HOAs. Nevada HOAs are currently regulated by the Nevada Real Estate Division (NRED).

The reason for this proposed change? Essentially, according to Hansen, HOA disputes are too much trouble, the issues too “minor” to bother with! If you read the attached news release, the insinuation is that all HOA issues involve rules over flying the flag or other aesthetic concerns.

Really? Tell that to the thousands of members of 37 HOAs affected by a massive construction defect fraud scheme! Ask them if they think HOA election fraud is a “minor” issue that does not deserve the attention of state lawmakers. Ask these owners if dealing with the aftermath of crooked attorneys, property managers, and fraudulent straw buyers are other “minor” issues that continue to plague HOAs. Does NRED lack jurisdiction to handle these serious matters? If so, then what’s the point of having a regulatory agency with limited authority?

Of course, most would agree that HOAs have some rather unrealistic restrictions, oppressive covenants, and crazy rules that often do result in overblown disputes over trivial matters – mainly because they can. Restrictive Covenant “contracts” can say just about anything a Developer’s Attorney can dream up. Let’s face it, a lot of these claims that Hansen finds so time-consuming would qualify as frivolous, because the rules themselves are often petty, vague, and unnecessary.

But, rather than wash their hands of HOAs as inconvenient annoyances (despite the fact that all of the owners pay substantial property and various state taxes), why won’t NV lawmakers take a stand and simply declare such trivial “keeping up appearances” restrictions and rules unconstitutional and therefore invalid? Why not return full control of individual lots or units to individual owners, instead of the Association? Or how about repealing the authority of NV HOAs to fine or otherwise unilaterally penalize owners, without the benefit of due process?

Think about it, if the HOA Board had to initiate a legal suit over the color of window shades or a flag display – before the alleged offender could be fined or otherwise penalized – I suspect there would be very few lawsuits filed, and more effort to work out disagreements amicably. That would be especially true if either party – HOA or homeowner – had to pay stiff penalties for bringing frivolous claims that waste the court’s time.

And, truthfully, if HOAs are really that troublesome, why not just stop creating more of them?
(link to news release about NV AB 233)

(link to Nevada AB 233)

Trouble brewing in Poinciana HOA?

      7 Comments on Trouble brewing in Poinciana HOA?
guest blog by Deborah Goonan

You might remember previous blogs about Poinciana HOA in Florida, the community of over 50,000 residents that has been attempting to incorporate as a city for the past three years.

Well, now the Board’s President, President Jolly, has filed complaints with State Attorneys in Osceola and Polk Counties, alleging that $2 million is unaccounted for. Poinciana is managed by mega-management company, First Services Residential (FSR).

WFTV has been covering the story. The Board refused to allow video coverage of a recent special meeting called to discuss complaints filed by Jolly against FSR. Someone even made a motion to remove Jolly as President, but that motion failed to carry.

Believe it or not, Poinciana’s earliest phases were incorporated in the 1970s, but construction is still ongoing today. Tony Iorio, AVP of home builder Avatar (now known as AV Homes) is on the Board of the HOA. Yes, you read that right, the HOA Board still has representation for the Developer, after over 4 decades.

Iorio is seen on this video defending FSR, and claiming that Jolly has no proof of impropriety.

Well, that’s why Jolly has filed formal complaints and requested an audit. We’ll have to wait and see what the auditor’s report says.

An official statement from FSR denies any wrongdoing.

If that’s not enough potential trouble, in recent years, violent crime and gang activity has been reported in the once quiet community, including an attempted murder in January of 2015.

To give you some perspective on what could be America’s largest HOA, according to public records, about 20% of homes were constructed in the 1990s, and a whopping 62% of homes were constructed between 2000-2009. As of June 2014, 23% of homes remained vacant following the housing market crisis. The community is located in the middle of what was once a rural area in Central Florida. Although Poinciana is certainly large enough to be a city, since it is a private planned community governed by an HOA, it does not have its own police or fire protection, and must rely on services from Osceola and Polk counties.

Perhaps these recent events will garner sufficient support for the next attempt at attaining status as an official city.

(link to WFTV coverage of complaints against FSR over missing money)

(link to Orlando Sentinel report of gang violence in Poinciana)

(link to housing Statistics for Poinciana FL)

(link to previous blog)

High stakes $120m lawsuit over condo termination blocked by rival

      2 Comments on High stakes $120m lawsuit over condo termination blocked by rival
guest blog by Deborah Goonan
Here is the flip side of the coin in the chaotic world of Florida’s optional condo terminations.

Owners of roughly 30-year old, 48-unit, Tropicana Condominium in Sunny Isles Beach, Florida, decided they’d like to take advantage of the hot real estate market, and offer their condo for sale to the highest bidder.Back in 2013, a majority of Voting Members of the Association approved an amendment to the declaration, allowing for termination with 80% approval, bringing their documents in line with FL Statute 718.117, which became law in 2007.

Several Florida attorneys have gone on record touting the potential benefits of the Optional Termination provisions — later dubbed by many critics as “eminent domain for condos” — as a means for owners of older condo buildings located on high-value land parcels to “cash out” by terminating the association and selling to a willing developer. (see link to a blog below that appeared in the Sun Sentinel a few years ago)

Reportedly, the Association received one offer of $100 million. With the attractive offer on the table, the Association was easily able to obtain more than 80% of the vote. However, five units had recently been sold to new owners representing 10% of the condominium association. These five owners objected to the termination and filed suit against Tropicana Condo Association to block the termination. As you may recall from previous blogs, Florida statute maintains that 10% of members of an Association can challenge a termination approved by at least 80% of members.

So who are the “hold out” owners of these five condos? Tropicana Board members allege (in a $120 million counter suit) that they are straw buyers with ties to Manuel Grosskopf and Edgardo Defortuna, wealthy real estate moguls currently developing a 52-story Ritz-Carlton condo tower directly adjacent to the Tropicana. The Tropicana is only 9 stories, but if sold to another developer, the building would be razed and another new high-rise condo would be constructed in its place, effectively blocking ocean views for many of the Ritz-Carlton’s multi-million dollar units.

In this case, instead of wealthy investors staging a hostile takeover and kicking out owners at a substantial financial loss, we have what appears to be a small band of rogue buyers thwarting a termination to prevent a condominium sale to a rival developer!

How is that for the irony of unintended consequences?