Category Archives: racketeering

How to Cultivate Apathy in a Community Association

guest blog by Deborah Goonan

A How-To Guide for HOA, Condo, and Co-op Board Members

1) Start off right – provide as little information as possible prior to closing the sale with a new buyer. Take full advantage of weak state disclosure laws. Delay providing a copy of governing documents and minimally-required financial documents as long as possible. Be sure to charge hefty “management” fees for this “service” to the buyer. Work with state Legislature to minimize disclosure requirements, and the time allotted for a buyer to review information and cancel a sale prior to closing.

–Provide even less disclosure to tenants and heirs of property, perhaps just a summary of the rules

–Make sure that sales agents do not educate their buyers by recommending that buyers obtain a legal and/or accounting review of documents provided prior to closing. The less the buyer knows, the greater the chance of closing the sale.

2) Maintain Developer control as long as possible. The Board will be appointed during this time, not elected. The Developer will maintain weighted voting in order to annex property (thereby increasing the period of Developer control) and amend governing documents without interference from residents. During this time, weighted votes of the Developer or any subsequent bulk investors will control the Board, and therefore the community, despite owner input. If and when turnover occurs, maintain as many Developer-appointed Board members as possible.

3) Communicate with residents as little as possible. Filter communications to present only information that is positive or neutral. Avoid publishing timely newsletters or posting information on a community website. In fact, try to avoid having a newsletter or a website.

Avoid open Board meetings. If state law requires open meetings, make minimally visible announcements, and try not to provide an accurate agenda. If residents show up at the meeting anyway, limit their input to speak to 3 minutes or less. Object if they try to record the meeting, even if allowed by state law.

–If a resident poses a difficult question, display an indignant response: accuse the resident of being disgruntled, unreasonable, unappreciative, or a trouble-maker.

–Alternatively, tell the resident you will “look into” the issue, and then table it. Do not follow up, and hope that if you ignore the problem it will go away.

–Intimidate residents by hiring a uniformed security guard or police officer to attend meetings. Threaten residents who dare to challenge your authority. Insist that the resident “shut up” or leave the meeting.

–Alternatively, immediately adjourn the meeting to avoid confrontation.

4) Conduct secret closed meetings outside the community, at a Board member’s residence, or by email. Hold any required open meetings for the formality of making motions and taking a pre-determined vote on issues already discussed and decided in the secret meetings.

5) Avoid posting minutes of meetings, and, if you must, keep minutes as sparse as possible.

6) Avoid distributing financial reports, including annual budget, reserve, and audit reports. Make residents request these in writing by certified mail, return receipt requested. Then delay response as long as possible, and provide incomplete information if possible.

7) Avoid elections, but if you must have them, control the vote as much as possible.

— Acquire as many properties as possible, because the more property you own as a Board member, the greater the percentage of voting interests you will own, and the more personal clout will have.

–Gather as many proxy votes as possible, by either intimidating residents to give you general proxy, or providing misleading information to obtain a directed vote favorable to your interests.

–Amend your ByLaws to “legally” rig the voting system so that the Board remains entrenched and in control without interference from residents. In large communities, create representative voting members or a multi-tier system of sub-associations with a Master Association. That way, only a handful of people actually vote on behalf of all residents.

–If your state requires secret ballot elections, you still have options. Try disqualifying voters by issuing bogus fines that, if unpaid, are grounds for removal of voting rights. Extend the deadline to get on the ballot, until you can arrange to get an insider on the ballot to challenge any potential trouble-makers. Mishandle or miscount ballots. Force candidates to challenge election results in mandatory arbitration.

8) If residents stage a recall, refuse to acknowledge it, and challenge it in court or arbitration. Work with your state Legislature to make the Recall process difficult to “stick.”

Waterlogged At Lemiere Condominiums

guest blog by Nila Ridings

Condo owners in Chandler, Arizona are finding themselves under water, lots of water!

Irreplaceable family photos and damage to items stored in their garages, such as cars, are not their problem, says the HOA. The insurance company for the HOA says it’s not their problem, either. And the condo owners didn’t carry flood insurance. Whose problem is it? Well, it looks like that is going to be decided in lawsuits. (Oh! Here we go again!)

J. Roger Wood an attorney and supporter of HOA homeowners notes the owners did notify their HOA prior to the storm of drainage problems. Will that be sufficient to settle these claims? Or will the HOA just decide to spend the money that could be spent repairing the drainage problems on fighting these condo owners in court? Will failure to maintain the property that resulted in condo owners receiving personal property damage be enough to convince a jury?

What do you think?

This is probably an ideal time to remind readers that any time you are making a request of the HOA to always do it in WRITING and keep a copy. If you send an email, print a copy and keep it in a file.

(link to KPHO TV story on flood damage)

 

What Are The Implications Of This One???

Regular readers of this blog know that I’ve preached from the street corners that an avalanche is coming which will send the American housing market into a massive tailspin. Billions of dollars will be lost and won. Ultimately, individual homeowners will be the big losers.

Remember the refrain? An avalanche starts with just a tiny imbalance, a molecule of ice falling from the crest of a snow ridge. But that tiny chip can hurl millions of tons of snow down a mountainside. Living in Colorado, all of us who love the outdoors have to be wary of this potential killer.

The Nevada Supreme Court might have just set off such a disaster. It ruled that a super priority lien, no matter how small, can destroy a first deed of trust. The implications for the Nevada housing industry are stunningly dismal. The court was narrowly divided. But the 4-3 majority ruled that a petty HOA lien can utterly wipe out the mortgage loan on a million dollar home.

A hundred dollar fine for a trash can left outside an hour after the deadline can be escalated into thousands of dollars in legal expenses and collection fees.

The boards of Homeowners Associations are cheering the news. This court decision now gives them unprecedented power to throw petty fines into the air to stifle any sign of dissent in a neighborhood. They’ll be able to grab million dollar properties and auction them off to fill the HOA budget.

Meanwhile, the boards of mortgage companies are now meeting to discuss two questions: Wouldn’t we be financial idiots if we ever loaned another dime to a Nevada homeowner? Or the alternative: How high shall we raise interest rates on every new mortgage to cover our expected losses?

Nevada! The nation’s focal point of HOA corruption is poised to do it all over again.

(link to Review-Journal article on court decision)

 

Wild Times in Southern Florida at Waterbridge Condominiums

Egads, it’s just an average meeting of an average Condo Board. Some poor average shmuck who’s been insisting that the board repair the fire damage over his apartment gets taken to the cleaners. All the resident did was ask to see the Condo Association’s financial records…it seems there are no reserve funds to pay for the fire damage. The board president repeatedly tries to scratch this guy’s eyes out. Another former board president admits to a local TV crew that he’s harrassed and even pulled a gun on this same resident.

LOL! What a wonderful day it was when the video camera was invented!

(link to Local10 News story)

 

Story Behind Florida’s Epidemic of Hostile Condo Takeovers

guest blog by Deborah Goonan

In a previous blog, I explained CAI’s conflicted stance on private property rights of condo owners. In this blog, I provide the back-story.

Prior to 2007, if owners wanted to terminate the condominium regime, Florida law stated that 100% of owners – and lien holders – had to agree to the termination and a specific plan for liquidation of all assets. (Governing documents could specify a lower threshold, but few did.) The main problem with unanimous consent was that, following some of Florida’s hurricanes which damaged a significant number of condo buildings beyond repair, it was difficult or nearly impossible to locate and obtain consent from every unit owner, thus delaying termination and redevelopment.

In 2006, the Florida Legislature passed a remedy to this problem by amending Statute 718: allow dissolution of condominium with 80% member vote of approval OR less than 20% disapproval, in the aftermath of a disaster that destroys a building beyond repair, as well as in the event of optional or voluntary termination. Governor Jeb Bush vetoed that bill, citing concerns about less than unanimous approval, and the likelihood of unintended consequences in the event of optional terminations.

In a letter from the former Governor dated Jun 7, 2006, Jeb Bush (R) states:

“Among the potential unintended consequences is that the bill would permit one owner (such as a developer) to purchase 80 percent of the units in a condominium and seek termination, with the ultimate goal of redevelopment, in the absence of economic waste or impossibility. A possible remedy to this situation would be to require one vote per person, regardless of the number of units owned.”

The following year, in 2007, the Legislature was presented with a slightly modified version of the bill, written with the assistance of West Palm Beach attorney and CAI member, Michael Gelfand. Senator Steven A. Geller (D) presented the Senate version of the bill. Public records indicate that Geller was selected as CAI FL’s Legislator of the year in 2002. The former Senator is now a shareholder at Greenspoon Marder Law, a firm that specializes in Land Use, Zoning, Lobbying and Gaming. Representative Elaine Schwartz (D) presented the House version. Schwartz’s husband, Marty is a prominent real estate attorney and partner in the law firm of Bilzin Sumberg Baena Price and Axelrod, LLP.  The 2007 version allowed for optional termination by 80% vote of approval, as long as less than 10% objected to termination. The bill also diluted rights of lien holders to approve the termination plan, based upon appraisals presented by the majority voting for termination.

Despite continued objections from parties who continued to be opposed to optional termination by less than unanimous consent, the bill was not modified to remove the possibility of optional termination under these terms. Nor did the Legislature allow for allocation of votes per person rather than per unit. The bill passed the Legislature with near unanimous approval (just one vote against), and with the “strong support of the Real Property Section of the Florida Bar.”

Prior to the bill being signed into law by then-Governor Charlie Crist (at the time, a Republican), Sarasota attorney Dan Lobeck, also a CAI member attorney, expressed concerns in a May 2007 article in the Herald-Tribune,  stating that the Voluntary (optional) Termination portion of the approved bill:

“…is simply a property grab by developers with assistance of the state.”

In the same report, Jack McCabe, CEO of McCabe Research & Consulting LLC, stated:

“If this [bill] goes through, we are going to see developers go in and be much more successful in acquiring existing condominium properties, especially on the waterfront,” and “some of those properties that are now more affordable will be leveled and very expensive multimillion-dollar units will be built on those sites. It will effectively render it impossible to find affordable condominium units in waterfront locations in Florida in the future.”

Of course, Developers and investors began to take advantage of the new Statute almost immediately.

It’s not as though the CAI and Real Estate industry proponents of this flawed statute provision, and the Legislature that overwhelmingly voted in favor of the bill, could not have foreseen such “unintended consequences.” The curious observation is that CAI’s member attorney firms are clearly divided on the issue of consent for Optional Termination of condominiums in Florida – and have been from the start -representing developers and investor-controlled Associations on one side, and individual owners on the other.

References:

http://www.becker-poliakoff.com/Files/7525_cu_2007_archive.pdf

http://www.ccfj.net/PB06SB1556veto.pdf

http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20070511/BUSINESS/705110303

http://www.becker-poliakoff.com/Files/8934_cu_2014_v06.pdf