Getting the Feds involved in HOA reforms

As apparent from the Illinois Supreme Court opinion[i] favoring HOAs, the Feds need to get involved. However, the Feds, like state attorney generals, have no specific authority to get involved – HOA/condo states are state laws, except for those federal laws like the American Disabilities Act and Fair Housing.

A broader approach is necessary in order to wake up the Feds, and that can come about by an appellate or US Supreme Court case decision on 1) violations of a homeowner’s constitutional rights, or 2) a violation of the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause brought under federal law § 42 U.S.C. 1983, Civil action for deprivation of rights. This approach would be similar to the whistle blower law suits of Erin Brockovich or Jeffrey Wigand (tobacco nicotine is addictive).

Read the paper at constitutional rights . . . .


[i] See IL Supreme Court holds HOAs “are a creature of statute,” and not contractual.


The URI to TrackBack this entry is:

RSS feed for comments on this post.

3 CommentsLeave a comment

  1. […] Since the state legislators have failed to act, it becomes necessary for the Feds to protect the people. See The FEDS must restore law and order in secessionist HOA governments and Getting the Feds involved in HOA reforms. […]

  2. Given, “It is well established legal doctrine that the waiver of constitutional rights must be voluntary and explicitly stated.
    [T]he common-law contract principle that a contract will be enforced unless the interest promoted by its enforcement is outweighed by the public policy harms resulting from enforcement. . . . The contractual waiver of a constitutional right must be a knowing waiver, must be voluntarily given, and must not undermine the relevant public interest in order to be enforceable.”

    And given, HOA do not specifically state the waivers when applying covenants and HOA levy penalty fines for lack of compliance to the covenants – are these fines unconstitutional?

  3. GS:

    Agree, but recognize a sustainable constitutional challenge (published appellate court holding) is a high hurdle.

    Think Clint, Nick, Darcy and GI or Tim, Joy and ACLPI and the right case!

    Based upon Clint’s referral, I engaged the Rose Law Group (Court S. Rich, Loren R. Ungar and Evan D. Bolick [the apple did not fall far from the tree]) for the limited purpose of filing a Motion for Reconsideration (02/28/2014), WMB v. TCA, Inc., (33-1805, books & records), DFBLS/OAH Superior Court/LCA (Ekmark), before I filed pro se a Notice of Appeal (03/14/2014), Court of Appeals, Division One.

    Judge McClenne has not ruled on the Motion for Reconsideration as of this date.

    As of January 14, 2014, TCA has spent over $65,000 against a judgment for $5,000 in attorneys’ fees (under appeal) to deny me books and records and to defend that denial at the OAH, LCA and now the Court of Appeals.

    Say, very likely $85,000 and counting before the appeal to the Court of Appeals (briefing to oral argument to decision will likely take +/- one year and significant additional fees and costs). Think TCA members’ OPM funding the indefensible.


Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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