A complaint was filed with the NJ Supreme Court against CAI for a lack of “candor to the tribunal” with respect to statements made in CAI-NJ’s amicus curiae brief in Mazdabrook v. Khan. Excerpts from the complaint letter follow.
Two attorneys for the Community Associations Institute (CAI) NJ Chapter, Karpoff and Macysyn, sought and received permission to file an amicus brief and to make oral arguments. They signed certifications as to the truth of the statements made and content of their brief.
I submit that the arguments to file a brief and to make oral arguments contained misrepresentations and false and misleading statements as to the true nature and purpose of CAI. These misrepresentations lead the Court, and amicus readers, to believe that CAI is not in a conflict of interest position as its true interests, which oppose the interests of the homeowners associations and the of HOA member homeowners.
The Macysin certification says the brief is brought on behalf of CAI itself, as a friend of the court to help it in its decision. Yet, throughout the certification one is confused as for whom CAI is representing: CAI itself, the HOAs, or the homeowners. These are conflicting representations.
In the 24 paragraph certification, Macysin fails to inform the Court of the legal tax exempt status of CAI as a 501(c)6 tax-exempt organization as of 1992. CAI chose the vendors and became a trade group so it could avoid the limitations of an educational organization and become actively involved in lobbying in all the states. (The usual course of action is for the consumer group, which is seeking assistance, to set up its own nonprofit educational organization. It then would invite the vendors as affiliate or associate, second-class, members).
It should be clearly understood that the production of harmonious and vibrant communities is juxtaposed to the true interests of the CAI members. Rather, the best interest of its true members is to keep the HOA heavily dependent upon the services of its attorney and management members, to foster adversarial relations, hostility and divisiveness, and to deny democratic reforms under the state and US Constitutions. The CAI record before state legislators and in the courts, including here in New Jersey, speaks for itself.
The CAI-NJ prepared HOA board resolution (Appendix B, page 6), gives the impression that the HOA board’s decision to join CAI is a valid act. What this resolution accomplishes is to allow the HOA board to address homeowner concerns about a conflict of interest. It provides the board with a reasonable justification for joining CAI — education for the benefit of the HOA.
However, the basis for a board to sign-off is that CAI is the “Great Educator” and that CAI has no conflict of interest as a business trade group whose tax-exempt grant is to help its members, not consumer HOAs. The resolution does not state that CAI is a 501(c)6 trade group or that since it was created in 1973 to solve problems with HOAs it has failed to do so for the past 39 years, or that it has repeatedly opposed constitutional protections for homeowners.
Sanctions were sought against these CAI attorneys.