AZ SC in Kalway holds CC&Rs as “special contracts”

Author’s note:  I make extensive use of direct quotes in order to avoid my interpretations “leaking” through.

The Arizona Supreme Court in Kalway[i] threw some light on the controversy that HOA covenants and CC&Rs are valid contracts and are held as such.   The Court held that, my emphasis,

“CC&Rs form a contract between individual landowners and all the landowners bound by the restrictions, as a whole. . . . in special types of contracts, we do not enforce ‘unknown terms which are beyond the range of reasonable expectation . . . . CC&Rs are such contracts.  Because covenants originate in contract, the primary purpose of a court when interpreting a covenant is to give effect to the original intent of the parties’ with any doubts resolved against the validity of a restriction.”

With respect to the requirement for very important but ignored homeowner notice, the Court continued, my emphasis,

“The notice requirement relies on a homeowner’s reasonable expectations based on the declaration in effect at the time of purchase—in this case, the original declaration.  Under general contract law principles, a majority could impose any new restrictions on the minority because the original declaration provided for amendments by majority vote. But allowing substantial, unforeseen, and unlimited amendments would alter the nature of the covenants to which the homeowners originally agreed. . . . Thus, “[t]he law will not subject a minority of landowners to unlimited and unexpected restrictions on the use of their land merely because the covenant agreement permitted a majority to make changes to existing covenants.”

One of the most egregious injustices that I’ve come across is the failure of the courts to apply the full body of contract law to HOA covenants in CC&Rs.  Opinions and dicta refer to the CC&Rs simply as a contract, or an agreement interpreted as a contract — yet in spite of the above opinion — fail to protect the homeowner under contract law 101.  The Cornell Legal Information Institute lists the basic criteria for a valid contract:

 ‘The basic elements required for the agreement to be a legally enforceable contract are: mutual assent, expressed by a valid offer and acceptance; adequate consideration; capacity; and legality.”

Added to this general description of a legal contract is the Opinion holding that the CC&Rs are special contracts that do not permit “unreasonable  expectations” and that the notice of reasonable expectations is set forth in the CC&Rs “at the time of purchase,” and the law will protect minority owners from any such expectations.   

As I have argued many times,[ii] the boilerplate  amendment process that binds non-agreeing owners solely on the basis of a majority or some super majority renders the original “contract” a meaningless piece of paper. 

Professor Barnett explains,

“A law may be ‘valid’ because it was produced in accordance with all the procedures required by a particular lawmaking system, [the HOA amendment procedure, for example] but be ‘illegitimate’ because these procedures were inadequate to provide assurances that a law is just.”[iii]

Conclusion

It should be evident to all that this constitutional issue of “signed the agreement” and are thereby bound to obey needs further thought. As it stands, homeowners in HOAs are subject to special laws, the numerous state HOA/Condo Acts, for special entities allowed to function as de facto private governments outside the protections of the US Constitution.

Notes

---

[i] Kalway v. Calbria Ranch, CV-20-o152-PR, ¶ 13 -16  (Ariz. March 22, 2022).

[ii] See HOA consent to agree vs. “the will of the majority”,  Contracts, the Constitution and consent to be governed and HOA Common Sense, No. 4: Consent to be governed.

[iii] Randy Barnett, Restoring the Lost Constitution, Princeton Univ. Press, (2004).

AZ Supreme Court landmark HOA opinion

“For the times they are a-changin’”[1]

The Arizona Supreme Court opinion in Kalway[2] is, in my view,  a landmark opinion supporting and protecting individual property rights of homeowners in HOAs that are subject to a broad, procedural CC&Rs amendment procedure.  The boilerplate CC&Rs in an intentional denial of fundamental property rights strip away eminent domain protections by ignoring the content of CC&Rs amendments —  anything and everything goes!

Referring to AZ statute 33-1817(A) that allows amendments solely based on a majority vote of the members, the Court stated:

“But § 33-1817(A) does not displace the common law, which  prohibits some amendments even if passed by a majority vote. The original declaration must give sufficient notice of the possibility of a future amendment; that is, amendments must be reasonable and foreseeable.”

The Court cited its 2010 opinion in Dreamland,[3]

“We agree that these cases tend to support the homeowners, in that each refuses enforcement of a new covenant that markedly changed the obligations of the implicated lot owners. . . . in those cases where courts disallowed the amendment of covenants, the impact upon the objecting lot owner was generally far more substantial and unforeseeable than the amendment at issue [in the case before it] “

I had addressed these concerns  regarding the Dreamland decision in my 2009-2010 Commentaries that provide  details on these substantive issues.[4]

Although not stated were issues of due process, equal protection of the laws, and eminent domain takings — not raised in the initial complaint or appeal, so the courts  did not offer a direct opinion —  this  opinion strikes at HOA eminent domain takings of homeowner property rights.  It also dealt with the question of homeowner notice (due process) and unexpected and unreasonable modifications to the CC&Rs (lack of equal protection under CC&Rs private eminent domain rights).

* * * *

The above represents my perspective as a longtime 22-year homeowner rights advocate and activist.  CAI Arizona has a different perspective favoring HOAs and their decisionmakers, the board of directors.[5]. Its presentation starts with the overall court opinion.

“Based on this recent case law, CC&R amendments must be reasonable and foreseeable in order to be enforceable. In other words, community associations can no longer amend CC&Rs to create new obligations where the original CC&Rs did not provide owners notice that they may be subject to the new obligations.”

But then adds its spin and advertising appeal:

“Please note that these amendments are specific to Calabria Ranch and its CC&Rs. In other words, an amendment that the Arizona Supreme Court found invalid in the Calabria Ranch case may be found valid for a different community association. Again, we strongly recommend consulting with the CHDB team to analyze your community association’s specific CC&Rs and any proposed, or previously adopted, amendments.”

Looking at the tremendous value toward HOA reform, the Court’s opinion would apply to any instance where the broad conditions — no notice and unexpected and unreasonable — apply, above and beyond those specific amendments dealt with in Kalway.  I’ve found the most prevalent are unexpected and unreasonable amendment modifications, and a failure to provide notice to the homeowner that abounds in the CC&Rs. It falls into those discretionary areas where the CC&Rs are silent, which the Court has declared doesn’t give the BOD unlimited rights.

This opinion presents a powerful tool, a powerful argument before the courts and before state legislatures when seeking HOA substantive reforms.

Yes, and how many times can a man turn his head
And pretend that he just doesn’t see?

The answer, my friend, is blowin’ in the wind
The answer is blowin’ in the wind

(Bob Dylan, Blowin’ In the Wind,  1963)

Notes

---

[1] Bob Dylan,  “For the times they are a-changin’”  (1964).  It’s interesting to note the coincidences of publication years for this song and The Homes Association Handbook.

[2] Kalway v. Calbria Ranch, CV-20-o152-PR (Ariz. March 22, 202).

[3] Dreamland Villa Community Club, Inc. v. Raimey, 224 Ariz. 42, 51 ¶ 38 (App. 2010).

[4] HOA principalities where there’s no ex post facto or eminent domain protections and AZ court ends open-ended “ex post facto” HOA amendments.

^[5] “CC&R Amendment Update from the Arizona Supreme Court,” March 29, 2022 By Carpenter Hazlewood I News.

The roles of the Supreme Court vs the Legislature

At today’s Senate confirmation hearings of Judge Jackson, an intriguing dialogue took place between Jackson and Senator Lee (Utah).  The topic raised by Lee focused on the role that the Supreme Court is to say what the law is, and the role of Congress (or state legislature) is to say what the law should be creating public policy. The Court deals with the policies set by Congress.

The role of homeowner rights advocates is to say  to the legislatures what the law should be with respect to HOA-Land.  It is not to say that this happened to me and it’s wrong, or my HOA does so and so, which does not rise to the level of setting policy for all HOAs/condos  — no special laws for special entities.

And that’s another area where reform legislation often fails — too local.  Reforms must be broad as to have general concern for the state; as the courts have held from time to time, “This case Involves legal issues of statewide importance.”   And it must be explicitly stated or  implied.

Public policy today is harmful to the private property rights of HOA owners, and to a denial of due process protections and violations of the equal protection of the laws, treating HOAs as if they were independent principalities.  These policies and attitudes have created unjust, bad laws enforced by the courts, and used as precedent for more bad laws.

The cycle ends by advocates addressing the root cause of pro-HOA laws that treat HOA members as second-class citizens, which they are not!

HOAs against protected member speech on social media

In contrast to the authoritative evidence supporting free speech for HOA members criticizing their BODs, the Tinnelly Law firm blog states up front in big letters, “HOA LAWYER BLOG.”  As for the content, the following quote sums up the view of the Tinnellys.

“The lack of regulation on social media communications can cause neighborhood tensions and smear the reputation of a community, causing a negative effect on property values.  This has led many homeowners associations to develop protocols and guidelines with regard to social media. “

(Some research shows Tinnelly is solid CAI with the owners, Richard and Stephen Tinnelly as members, as well as Director Acosta and article attribution to lawyer Kim.)

Read the full 4-page paper at social media free speech

proposed HOA constitutionality bill

“Now is the time for all good homeowner advocate leaders to come to the aid of member-owners”

 living in HOAs and suffering abuse, financial and emotional distress as a result of BODs being  protected by Arizona laws. These abuses are easy to understand and support! (See HOA Common Sense: rejecting private government and The HOA-Land Nation Within America).

A quick and simple — but highly effective — bill that was proposed in March 2011 and will bring relief to homeowners being treated a second-class citizens by state laws in support of the HOA legal scheme. It was ignored by Arizona advocates and dismissed by the Legislature.

“No provision of any contract or any declaration of covenants, conditions, and restrictions . . . is enforceable in this state unless the party seeking to enforce the provision proves by clear and convincing evidence that 1) the provision being enforced was knowingly and voluntarily agreed to by all parties . . . . Any representation or statement offered as clear and convincing evidence . . . shall include a signed statement containing the following, beginning with “I understand that I can ask that the following be read and explained to my satisfaction.”

“So reads an excerpt from my proposed “Truth in HOAs” statute that should be made law in each and every state. That is, if indeed the legislature stands by the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution, which we are hearing so much about in the media nowadays.”

The “The Truth in HOAs Act,” as I called  it,  allows each state to modify the proposal in accordance with its state HOA/condo acts — shown in square brackets [].  Also, subsection (3) contains a list of acknowledgements  that can be tailored to each state’s advocate lobbying efforts.  See Arizona Truth in HOAs statute (pvtgov.org).  The essential bill section is contained in subparagraph (4).

“Therefore, in reference to subsection 3(d) above, 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.”

 The real estate subdivision or condominium will not be affected by requiring HOAs to join with other forms of local government and be subject to the Constitution as a home rule entity.  See HOAs violate local home rule doctrine and are outlaw governments.

This 2022 legislative session offers a unique, one-time opportunity to get the message across and to educate the legislators. Remaining silent on the issues only plays into the pro-HOA hands of CAI and offers excuses by the media not to cover HOA abuse.  Not only will you find “ammunition” in support of your arguments as contained in the 2 above publications, but also in my Arizona Supreme Court  amicus brief filed and accepted in Tarter v. Bendt (see note (vi) in Can HOA members expect justice in Arizona courts?).

My arguments are summarized in the Commentary.  As is my approach, my arguments are supported by legal authority and hard evidence documents, which CAI ignores and YOU lose!  They must be exposed if the legislators are to be fully informed on the reality of HOA-Land.  As leaders who are internet publishers,  actions speak louder than words!