The trial court’s Opinion correctly sets forth why the substantive and procedural law supports the grant of the Motion [summary judgment for the HOA], and cites Mackenzie [PA case] for its legal explanation that: assessments are due and payable by the homeowners; the issues raised concerning the propriety or legality of those assessments are neither properly litigated in a suit for the collection of those assessments nor properly withheld for such reasons; and the homeowners contesting the assessments must seek remedies other than self-help or non-payment, such as a declaratory judgment action. [In short, a “must pay” no matter what rule.] As a matter of settled substantive law, the Opinion explains why these ancillary issues raised by Appellants cannot be used as a defense against non-payment.
Footnote 8, in part, further explains, “Although Appellants’ ancillary [not directly related to the case] issues allege improprieties and/or illegalities of the assessments, such issues are not a defense for non-payment and cannot be used to delay payments that are due as a matter of law to the Association.”
Fawn Ridge Estates HOA v. Carlson, (Pa. Cmmw., No. 1462 C.D. 2010, July 25, 2011. (Not for precedent).
Why isn’t this very serious legal doctrine, one with important issues of a surrender of one’s rights to the HOA — one that the average person would expect to be just, fair and therefore a valid law — not disclosed to the potential HOA home buyer? This disclosure is made more important because the HOA obtains its powers under an adhesion contract that suppresses the rights and freedoms available to the people who do not live in an HOA.
It will be made part of The Truth in HOAs Disclosure Agreement.