Tag Archives: HOA corruption

Florida Appeals Court Decides CC&Rs Trump State Law

guest blog by Deborah Goonan

Florida HOA industry proponents are all abuzz about a recent District Court ruling. The Fourth District Court of Appeals (DCA) has clarified in its decision that if HOA Covenants, Conditions, & Restrictions (CC&Rs) specifically state that a third-party buyer need not be responsible for paying past due assessments, that provision overrides FL state law.

Florida statute currently requires that third-party buyers at foreclosure must pay all past due assessment liens accumulated by prior owners. However, as written, its intent is not to impair contract rights that were in effect prior to the 2007 statute.

In this article (HOA COLLECTIONS…Fourth DCA Decision Slams HOAs In Florida) the owner of an HOA collections business does not appear to be happy with the appellate court’s decision to defer to HOA governing documents in lieu of state law.

Note the double standard at play here. When it comes to CC&R violations, HOA-proponents want the “contract” to prevail. But when it comes to collection of past-due assessments from third party owners, the same folks want state law to override the CC&Rs, thereby impairing the HOA “contract.” In fact, the lower court decided the case in favor of the HOA, citing state law.

In this article written by a FL Attorney, blame and shame is cast upon lenders for “mooching” off of homeowners, and state legislators for creating laws that protect mortgage holders’ financial interest at the expense of homeowners and taxpayers.
But didn’t HOA proponents favor “mooching” off of homeowners when they gloated about NV and DC appeals courts decisions that third-party buyers at HOA foreclosure sales could wipe out mortgage liens? After all, what happens to property values when an $800,000 home sells at auction for little more than $6,000 owed one the HOA lien?

Lots of angles here.

For instance, what exactly are your HOA assessments paying for? Most of it may be for essential infrastructure – roads, storm water systems, private utilities, security, and the like. These are traditional government services, making HOA assessments akin to property taxes. So why is the HOA a corporation and not an official “mini-government” subject to prevailing Constitutional law instead of contract law?

Portions of assessment funds may also be for non-essential amenities. But our current laws treat all of these funds as absolutely essential, and as mandatory obligations. Assessments must be paid No Matter What, or risk lien and foreclosure by your HOA. If HOA fees were truly “contractual” obligations, homeowners would have the power to withhold payment for non-delivery of services, and the HOA would not have the power to foreclose to collect liens.

On the other hand, if HOAs were truly “mini-governments,” then why wouldn’t HOA assessment liens – at least the portion payable for essential services – hold an equal or higher priority than property tax liens?

So many contradictions and double standards, none of which benefit the homeowner.

(link to brief summary of new case law)

 

Ultimate Bad Neighbors

Zillionare FaceBook founder Mark Zuckerberg is trying to start his own HOA in Palo Alto, California. He just doesn’t want anyone else to live there except him.

Understandably, when Zuckerberg built his own mansion he wanted some privacy and bought up all the homes around him. He can afford to toss around 38 million bucks. But he’s being sued by a couple who claim they were conned into selling their property at too low a price to a ‘mystery’ corporation that turned out to be Zuckerberg.

I sympathize with this billionaire wanting some privacy and security. He’s probably got more stalkers and paparazzi than George Clooney. But with his wealth why would you subject yourself to the incredible invasion of privacy that happens during depositions and court testimony? To Zuckerberg, 1.7 million dollars is pocket change. Pay these reptilians off and get on with life!

(link to Bloomberg article on Zuckerberg neighbor fight)

 

Funny, But Only Mildly HOA-Related

This one has been circulating recently. It involves a tiger, a police stop, and a Washington State kid who’s already wise to the ways of his Homeowners Association.

(link to real smart kid)

 

 

Hard To Get A Mortgage???

Some folks thought I was crazy when I claimed a Nevada Supreme Court decision could make it impossible for many people to get a mortgage. The court ruled that a 6000 dollar HOA lien could extinguish an 800 thousand dollar mortgage.

How is that possible?

How is that fair?

What mortgage company official in his or her right mind make loans in such an area? Is it any wonder that thousands upon thousands of Nevada homes are for sale and there are no buyers?

(link to industry news column on super-priority liens)

 

Durham NC Mayor Admits Risk In Buying Into An HOA

guest blog by Deborah Goonan 

Last fall I blogged about several unfinished housing developments, and effects on HOA members. One of these subdivisions, Stone Hill Estates, has been involved in litigation over unfinished roads and stormwater systems for almost a decade. Last year, a Judge ordered the City of Durham, NC, to contribute to completion costs.

(link to previous blog here)

Fast forward about 7 months later, and Stone Hills Estates HOA and neighboring Ravenstone HOA residents are still living with unfinished roads and stormwater systems. The city of Durham’s latest proposal is to contribute a mere 10% of construction costs to complete infrastructure in the two subdivisions, and then assess 750 lot owners approximately $5000 each over the next eight years. While a 10% contribution might technically fulfill the court’s order, it hardly seems reasonable and fair given the estimated $1.6 million price tag.

Homeowners, supported by Public Works Director Robert Joyner, point out that the City of Durham erred with inadequate controls over the inspection process and the release of securities prior to completion of the subdivisions. It was the City that issued certificates of occupancy. Joyner also points out that ten years ago, the city could have added a 1-inch coat of blacktop paving to prevent degradation of roads that has resulted after a decade of neglect of the unfinished project. Therefore, homeowners argue, it is unfair to expect them to bear 90% of the total cost of completion.

But the Mayor’s response, as reported in the Herald Sun:

After the public comment period Mayor Bill Bell said the city needs to rethink the proposal.

“I can’t support what’s being presented to us from the staff … We need to find another way to deal with this,” Bell said.

However, Bell also said homeowners took a risk when they bought property in the area.

“I think property owners there bear a certain amount of responsibility, I think the city bears a certain amount of responsibility,” Bell said. “The question is how do we share that?”

No decision has been made on the assessments as the City Council referred it back to the administration and the City Manager’s office.

Aha! Finally, a local government leader goes on record admitting that, when buying into an HOA, the consumer is taking on substantial financial risk. When a developer walks away from the subdivision, the cost of completion of common areas is either dumped on the homeowners (or lot owners), or the corresponding loss in property values is deducted from their equity. Either way, consumers lose.

Even though HOA homeowners pay essentially equivalent property taxes, they cannot expect to receive equivalent services to non-HOA homeowners. The local government expects HOA owners to bear the brunt of the cost of constructing and maintaining infrastructure.

Now, ask yourself why these critical facts are not fully disclosed prior to transfer of title to a new owner.

And consider this: Does it truly make sense to divide up our roads and storm water systems into hundreds of thousands of private communities? After all, in reality, roads are necessary to provide public access to these communities, and storm water drainage diverts water many miles downstream, affecting neighboring public and private communities along the way.

How can we realistically parse financial responsibilities for major infrastructure to each individual HOA, especially when, through economies of scale, those costs can be spread out over all residents of a municipality or county?

Why should property owners in HOAs have to risk their financial security, simply to own a home? Our government leaders seem to have lost sight of the fact that Developers and fellow investors are supposed to bear those risk — not consumers.

(link to article about irate homeowners in Durham NC)