Are you interested in improving living conditions in homeowners associations (HOAs), condo associations, and cooperatives in the US? Or would you like to see a broader array of housing choices in this country?
A group of housing advocates is interested in organizing to promote consumer-friendly policies and standards for local governance and management of our communities, particularly those that are private, Association-Governed Residential Communities (more commonly known as HOAs). We are conducting a CONSUMER–FOCUSED survey of interested residents and former residents of HOAs in the US.
We want to hear from you.
What are the issues that are most important to you?
What has been your personal experience living in HOAs, Condo Associations, or Cooperative?
Why are you interested in change, and have you been involved in trying to make that happen?
The survey is sponsored by Sara Benson, proprietor of Association Evaluation LLC, an innovative, comprehensive community association rating service, the first of its kind in the US. Benson and Don DeBat, both of Chicago, are co-authors of Escaping Condo Jail, a book that exposes the truth and debunks the myths surrounding the condo lifestyle. Both authors are committed consumer advocates with a lifetime of experience in the Real Estate industry. Benson is a veteran Real Estate Broker and former HUD consultant, DeBat is a Journalist and Editor of Real Estate columns in two Chicago newspapers. You can read book reviews and learn more about the co-authors on Amazon.com.
Please note that this survey is consumer-focused, and is NOT sponsored by Community Associations Institute (CAI), National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) or any other industry or trade group. Our goal is to give housing consumers a voice in US housing policy-making, and that begins with listening to your concerns.
Please take a few minutes to respond to our brief survey by August 1st. We value your input and your privacy. Your responses will remain confidential, and will not be shared with salespeople, vendors, or anyone in your HOA.
There are some scattered court cases which may have an interesting impact on Homeowners Associations, an impact many of us would love to see. From the National Law Review, the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals ruled that HOAs are debt collectors. We all know they file liens and harrass homeowners into paying dues, fines, collection costs, attorneys’ fees. But if they’re debt collectors then they have to follow all the laws governing debt collections. With what we know about HOA bullies that could subject associations to huge fines.
The Supreme Court’s recent disparate impact decision has been discussed before on Neighbors At War. It will most likely lead to a huge increase in lawsuits because people were discriminated against even if there was no intent to discriminate. Well, housing discrimination is basically the middle name of many HOA board bullies. This creates tremendous financial liability for all HOA communities.
Then there’s the Nevada high court ruling that HOA liens have super-priority status over mortgage companies. Nearly two dozen states have such rules. Lenders might become extremely wary of lending money to potential buyers of HOA property. Once that trend starts, HOA home values will crash because buyers won’t be able to find lenders.
It’s another sad day for Nevada homeowners. Federal Judge James Mahan has given another one of the Las Vegas HOA swindlers a sissy sentence. Organized crime swindler Charles McChesney was sentenced to 30 months in federal prison. Ultimately, he’ll only spend 15 months there.
Homeowners in Nevada lost untold millions of dollars when this crime ring ripped off Homeowners Associations all across the valley. They’ll never get a dime of that back. This was a vicious financial crime that completely changed the lives of many decent working and/or retired people. To give these swindlers only 30 months is a crime in itself. Even though only a dozen Homeowners Associations were named as victims in the case, inside information says there may have been hundreds more.
The FBI generated about four million pages of evidence and testimony. Had the investigation exposed the entire Nevada scam the evidence could have run into the hundreds of millions of pages.
Think of this: If crooked HOAs and management companies across the country were put through the same kind of investigative scrutiny there would be millions of convictions. There just aren’t enough prisons to hold everyone.
Yes, it’s a sad day for Nevada. But it’s even sadder for the rest of the country.
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.
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.
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.
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)
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.
Ah yes, I do like to keep you posted on embezzlers who steal from their their neighbors. It’s such a personal crime. You have to look your neighbors right in the eye and tell them, “I’m robbing you blind and you’re too stupid to know.”
We’re not too stupid. We just don’t have the guts to spread the word. But that may be changing.
Lorene Lutey Treml, of the Meadow Valley Condominium Association in Wisconsin: You’re a crook. A firing squad is too good for you.
