Our judicial system rebounds with mottos, slogans, quotes end even chiselings on building facades attesting to the goal of “justice for all” or “equal justice under the law.” But we must ask whether justice was served in the Arizona ruling in Gelb v. DFBLS that struck down an independent tribunal’s adjudication of HOA disputes? We must ask: Was the ruling judicial activism in support of a political agenda?
In the underlying Hancock case, the court held,
The separation of powers doctrine does not forbid all blending of powers, but only is intended to keep one branch of government from exercising the whole power on another branch . . . Courts today also recognize that absolute independence of the branches of government and complete separation of powers is impracticable. . . .We also believe public policy favors such a blending of powers here.
With the above understanding, we must ask how the Gelb court arrived at its opinion that, “In accordance with well-established legal authority, the HOA has overcome the presumption of constitutionality . . . “
Read the full Commentary at HOA judicial activism.