Tag Archives: HOA Abuse

Dead Beavers?

I thought I’d heard of everything, but readers of this blog site send me the most wonderful material. Homeowner association disputes go to cops and courts all the time. But the latest one from Forsyth County, Georgia got me chuckling.

A board member upset a homeowner who went home and told her husband. The husband then slimed the board member on Facebook. The board member promptly filed a police complaint saying he was afraid of this neighbor for a variety of reasons such as guns, alleged PTSD, and of all things….

Hold your breath….

…leaving dead beavers in a parking lot to retaliate against a business owner.

(link to story on the dead beaver guy)

 

 

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?

Give This To Your Lawyer!

No one is more insightful or articulate than Arizona HOA warrior George Staropoli. When he comments on an HOA issue, you really want to stand up and pay attention. He’s written an incredibly interesting analysis of a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision that he says could ultimately have a direct impact on the national HOA scam. I would do a disservice to him if I tried to sum up his argument.

I would also do a disservice to you if I didn’t give you a link to his paper and urge you to read it, print it out and give copies to every influential person you meet. Your lawyer should have a copy of this. At some point our movement is going to reach a tipping point. Who knows? This could be that point.

(link to “Supreme Court says corporate entities cannot be used to evade Constitution”)

 

 

We Must Stop Duping The Buyers!

guest blog by Nila Ridings

How many people don’t trust used car sales reps? Most everyone. Why? Because they assume they are shysters, liars, and con men. They are the butt of jokes, in comics, late night TV, and any other time when someone is in need of an analogy for a buyer that got ripped off by a seller. Yet, many states have a “Lemon Law” that gives the buyers some protection from a bad car deal.

I bought a pre-owned truck from a guy that was absolutely honest about it. There were no surprises, no hidden damages, and no deception. As a matter of fact, I’ve become friends with his wife and family. They are a really fun and nice family.

I wish I could say the same about real estate agents and home sellers that I’ve done business with. Let’s see, there’s been the one that failed to mention the contractor he hired threw all of the construction debris down the duct work in a two-story house that could have caught on fire. There was the real estate agent that listed a property and didn’t exclude items the tenant owned so it was sold to me with her antique light fixture and automatic garage door as well as her new gas stove in the kitchen. Then there was the couple that said they wanted to move from this townhouse because they wanted “more land.” Truth is: They camouflaged all of his shoddy DIY projects and were running from this horrible HOA!

Finally, we have a lawsuit where a real estate agent is being sued for failure to disclose. Failing to disclose construction defects, assessments, and loans held by the HOA should be automatic loss of a real estate license in my opinion. Yet, there are plenty of HOA condo, townhouse, and home sales taking place where the poor buyer has absolutely no clue what awaits them once the ink on the contract dries. No laws that require disclosure that the HOA is in debt $1,000,000. Nope, that is just a minor unimportant detail. Bull crap!

We may soon arrive at the time when used car sales rep jokes will be replaced with real estate sales rep jokes. Possibly then the legislators will pass another “Lemon Law” that will give homeowners a way out of an HOA nightmare. And buyers that are duped a right to rescind the real estate contract for up to one year. That should bring some honesty into this home buying game! It certainly would level the playing field.

As for me, I’d rather deal with the car salesman than the real estate and HOA industry any day of the week!

(link to story about non-disclosure lawsuit)

 

Civil Forfeiture

I’m quite sure HOA warriors like George Staropoli and Evan McKenzie have written about this subject. But it’s really kind of spooky to chart the parallels between Civil Forfeiture laws and seizure of private property by Homeowners Associations.

Civil forfeiture laws are a horrendous holdover from the American Civil War and prohibition. They allow police the power to seize vehicles or property of people suspected of carrying on some kind of illegal activity. in the 70s and 80s police began seizing private homes that were suspected of being crack houses. At no time were the police required to prove guilt. Many times a homeowner who unknowingly leased his house to bad people ended up with no rights, no house, and no way to get it back.

In the 1980s Congress allowed police agencies all over the country to keep what they seized, even if there was absolutely no proof that a crime had been committed. Try to board a plane with too much cash in your wallet or purse the money? It can be legally seized. When do you get it back? In most cases, never. All the cops have to do is claim they suspected the money was involved in some kind of crime. No proof of guilt was needed. What rights do you have? You have the right to hire a lawyer and file a lawsuit to get it back. Anything else? No. No due process, no way to prove your innocence. The money simply disappears into what’s little more than a police slush fund.

It’s stunningly evil. In a country where the Constitution created rights to protect citizens against the government, justice has been turned on its ear.

Across the country, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, even millions of homeowners have been victimized in much the same way. Wrong kind of window shades or a kid’s toy left out overnight? A big fine, then a lien, then forfeiture of your house. Your rights? You get to hire a lawyer and sue to try your stuff back. The boards of Homeowners Associations have absolutely the same power of civil forfeiture as the cops. And the money they seize also goes into HOA slush funds, or into the pockets of embezzlers.

What have we done to ourselves, folks?

(link to booklet on civil forfeiture)

http://thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com/2015/pdf/Forfieture-Booklet-FINAL-Full.pdf