HOA Case History: state actors or mini/quasi government

1. Cohen v. Kite Hill,142 Cal App 3d 642 (1983) (A homeowners association board is in effect “a quasi-government entity paralleling in almost every case the powers, duties, and responsibilities of a municipal government.”)
2. Gerber v. Long Boat Harbour, 757 F Supp. 1339 (M.D. Fla. 1991) (court enforcement of private agreements in condo declarations is a state action; flag; free speech).
3. Hudgens v. NLRB 424 US 507 (1976) (functions of a municipality, citing Marsh; shopping center)
4. Marsh V. Alabama, 326 US 501 (1946) (company town and public functions)
5. Shelly v. Kraemer 334 US 1 (prohibitive state actions by use of judicial enforcement as state was fully aware of the illegal use of the courts; judicial enforcement harms constitutional rights)
6. Williamson v. Lee Optical, 348 US 483, (1954) (rational basis for scrutiny)
7. Damon v. Ocean Hills Journalism Club,  85 Cal. App. 4th 468; (2000) (quasi-government; board meetings public forums similar to government body;defamation)
8. Laguna Publishing Co. v. Golden Rain Found. of Laguna Hills, 131 Cal. App. 3d 182 (1982) (HOA has attributes that “in many ways approximate a municipality . . . close to a characterization as a company town.”)
9. Surfside 84 v. Mullen Ct. of Special Appeals of Maryland, No. 495 (September 1984) (state action; procedural due process; lack of notice; CAI Reporter).
10. Brock v. Watergate 502 So. 2d 1380 (Fla. 4 Dist. App. (1987)( public functiuons test; close nexus criteria; HOA lacks character of a company town)
11. Committee for a Better Twin Rivers v. Twin Rivers, 929 A.2d 1060 (NJ 2007) (HOA not state actor per NJ Scmidt version of Marsh; Not US but NJ Const. case).
12. Indian Lake v. Director of Revenue, 813 SW 2d 305 (not civic organization)
13. Midlake v. Cappuccio, 673 A 2d 340, Pa. Super. (1996) (condo is a pvt organization, not muni govt; not a company town)
14. Riley v. Stoves, 526 P.2d 747, Ariz. App. Div. 2 (1974) (state action; classification; enforce age restrictions;”court to enforce constitutional commands”; restriction was a permissible government interest).
15.  S.O.C. v. Mirage Casino-Hotel, 43 P 3rd 243 (Nev. 2001) (state action; public functions; delegating functions to private persons; commericial advertising on private property).

16. Terre Du Lac Ass'n, Inc. v. Terre Du Lac, Inc., 737 S.W.2d 206 (Mo. App. 1987). (quasi govt) (how a homeowner's association operates as a "quasi-governmental entity," not authority for the concept that an association's "quasi-governmental" actions are state actions;).

17. Westphal v. Lake Lotawana, 95 SW 3d 144 (Mo. App. 2003) (no support for “close nexus” state action).

Note:

1. The above cases in bold are color coded. Red is adverse to constitutional protections; Blue is favorable; black in neutral.
2. There are 3 case against and 4 cases in favor. Two were not dispositive. The “against” cases were all based on a “public functions” test.
3. The non-bold cases concern related issues not involving an HOA/condo, such as state action, public functions, or mini/quasi governments.

4. The above findings are not exhaustive and reflect the analysis of some 153 HOA/condo , state action cases on a federal and state level.