When can a homeowner withhold HOA assessments?

In January the Illinois Supreme Court agreed to hear the condominium case, Spanish Court Two Condominium Association v. Lisa Carlson, No. 115342, that breaks with the commonly held legal doctrine that HOA members are not permitted to withhold paying assessments, even when the HOA has failed to make necessary structural repairs to the condominium. Courts have held that HOAs are subject to servitudes law foremost, and that the common good required for the survival of the HOA is paramount.  Therefore, payments must not be withheld in spite of any outstanding controversy.

 In Spanish Court the appellate court held that a HOA condominium owner could withhold paying assessments because the relationship between the owner and HOA was similar to that of a tenant and landlord.  The contract in both situations involved mutual promises of making payments in return for HOA services to maintain and repair the property.  The court held that under contract law the withholding of payments was permitted. This decision broke with precedent, bringing justice to homeowners against special laws for HOAs.

 The courts in other cases and in other states have held that the declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) are a contract to be interpreted as a contract, but then apply servitude law over contract law, and even over constitutional law.  (See the Restatement Servitudes, § 3.1, comment h and§ 6.13, comment a).

 For example, this holding stands in contrast to the January 2013 Illinois Supreme Court ruling in Poris v. Lake Holiday POA (No. 113907) that allowed HOA security personnel to stop and detain drivers who are violating HOA rules, and not municipality ordinances. Here, servitude law prevailed over constitutional law.  And, in 2007 the Twin Rivers HOA (NJ) free speech case (CBTW v. Twin Rivers, 929 A.2d 1060) held that the business judgment rule would protect homeowner rights, and that there may be some instances where constitutional concerns could come into play.

 The Illinois appellate court admitted to the fact that its opinion stood alone in favor of the homeowner and contract law when HOAs are involved.  If the preponderance of the cases is to control, then homeowners can expect an Illinois Supreme Court reversal of the appellate decision as it did in Poris. Homeowners and justice should not be too enthusiastic about the right to withhold assessments in HOAs.


The URI to TrackBack this entry is: https://pvtgov.wordpress.com/2013/03/01/when-can-a-homeowner-withhold-hoa-assessments/trackback/

RSS feed for comments on this post.

One CommentLeave a comment

  1. Depending on the amount of failure that can be proven, the right to withhold assessments should be absolute, the Illinois Appellate Court’s decision is spot on, in an email that I received from the law the Firm of Carpenter, Hazelwood, Bolen and Delgado, PLC, title “To Enforce or Not to Enforce – There is no Question” they actually admitted that if the Association is not enforcing 100% of the CC&R’s then they cannot enforce any of them, I recently used the case law sited by CHBD PLC against them in a collection case, and they moved the Justice of the Peace to strike the pleading… Interesting enough the JP granted their motion to strike and it is now on appeal…

    The case law sited by CHBD used is from Arizona that is included in the email as “See Johnson Vs. Pointe Community Association, In Arizona”, A recorded declaration that contains restrictive covenants case to all properties in a development forms a contract between “the [development’s] property owners as a whole and the individual lot owners.” Ariz. Biltmore Estates Ass’n v. Tezak, 177 Ariz. 447, 448, 868 P.2d 1030, 1031 (App.1993) (citing Divizio v. Kewin Enters.,.,.,., Inc., 136 Ariz. 476, 481, 666 P.2d 1085, 1090 (App.1983)). The interpretation of restrictive covenants is a question of law for the court. Id. (“The interpretation of a contract is a matter of law and not a question of fact.”). In interpreting the meaning of a covenant, the superior court does not defer to the interpretation given by the association. Cf. id. (because interpretation of restrictive covenants is a matter of law, “the Court of Appeals is not bound by conclusions of law reached by the trial court, or the association.”).

    In addition A.R.S. Title 33-1802.4 Specifically states that the purpose of an association is for managing, maintaining or improving property and for these purposes the members are required to pay assessments…

    Draw your own conclusion the fact is if they don’t do what they are paid for then they don’t have a right to charge you for it…

    Please visit http://removethehoa.com for detials of the Failure that we have put up with over the past five and a half years…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s