To answer to the question I raised, “Is CAI a coercive HOA monopoly?,” required further research and analysis, which resulted in finding extensive and strong evidence, gathered from over the years, that CAI is definitely acting in violation of the anti-trust statutes; steps need to be taken to break up the monopoly. Below are my recommendations to regulate CAI’s activities to allow for the voice of others to be heard, especially from owners of HOA homes who suffer under the monopoly.
A. Regulations on CAI monopolistic activities
1. CAI to cease all references and implications that it represents HOAs before the legislature, all government bodies, before the courts and including amicus curiae briefs without express consent to do so;
2. Require CAI to state that it is a business trade nonprofit, explicitly a 501(c)6 and not an educational entity;
3. Inform readers that it cannot have HOAs as members since HOAs are consumers of the services provided by the trade group members;
4. It is actively engaged in lobbying state legislatures on bills favorable to the HOA and not necessarily to the membership;
5. Inform owners and the public in general that its attorney members represent the HOA personified by the Board of Directors and not the member.
B. Regulations on HOA activities in support of CAI monopoly
1. Similar to representing employees in bargaining with management, propose federal laws that permit and protect HOA members to organize its membership to bargain in good faith for amendments to the governing documents and Rules changes;
2. Propose legislation that allows for the creation and protection of a national HOA Homeowners Coalition, similar in intent as the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB);
3. To restrict the HOA from interference with the newly established organized national and state member entities;
4. Quarterly inform the membership of the number of directors, officers, managers, and attorneys who are members of CAI;
5. Publish the total annual amount of spending for CAI dues paid for any HOA members, donations, other fees, and expenditures paid for by the HOA;
6. Inform the membership that all communications with their attorney are not exempt from disclosure by state law,
7. and all communications with the HOA attorney constitutes corporate documents that are accessible to the members, unless explicitly exempted under “Pending or contemplated litigation” apply;
8. The CC&Rs or Declaration for any planned community, condominium association or homeowners association shall state that, “The association hereby waivers and surrenders any rights or claims it may have, and herewith unconditionally and irrevocably agrees to be bound by the US and State Constitutions and laws of the State as if it were a local public government entity.”
4 thoughts on “The need to regulate CAI monopoly”
Regarding, Regulations on CAI monopolistic activities
5. Inform owners and the public in general that its attorney members represent the HOA personified by the Board of Directors and not the member, NOR THE BAORD MEMBERS THEMSELVES . Carpenter Hazel wood wrote that the attorneys “only represent the HOA entity and not the Board members,” consequently in that case the attorneys represent no humans at all, so who is really represented and benefiting ???? CAI is not only a monopoly but an organization representing FICTITIOUS clients since neither members or Board members are their clieants !!! So why are legislators and judges listening and supporting them ???
What can be done to hold these judge accountable ? Judges are not all unbias, they are humans and have interests. Public needs to Judge Judges of their rulings
I have purchased an OWN both the name and EIN for Pleasant View Homeowners Association Inc. nonprofit corporation with the corresponding EIN number. Pleasant View Homeowners Association Inc of Indiana that does not have an EIN number and is conducting business illegally now has no way out.
What do you recommend I do with it?
Craig Severance 317-383-1803
First the names are different. Second, a corporation not registered in a state can function, can be sued, but cannot sue in return. Check with secretary of state.