As we approach an October 5th decision to decide to hear the Tarter v. Bendt defamation case[i] that raises free speech and limited- purpose public figure issues, I am hoping that the Court will address the real-world widespread misinformation regarding conditions and the legal status of homeowner associations statutes. This investigation by the Court is essential for a just and fair decision in the defamation lawsuit by an HOA president and attorney. Questions of failing to act in good faith and an abuse of the law by the plaintiff attorney with respect to filing a strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP) was raised in my amicus brief.
This is not an ordinary defamation lawsuit but one involving the actions and conduct by the plaintiff in his capacity as the HOA president and in the context of matters of HOA governance. In the recent Nevada Supreme Court opinion in Kosor,[ii] the Court held that “HOAs as public forums and the president as a limited-purpose public figure” and further held that an HOA “is a quasi-government entity ‘paralleling in almost every case the powers, duties, and responsibilities of a municipal government.’”
The decision by the Arizona Court will have widespread repercussions and consequences not only for Arizona, but for HOAs nationwide affecting statutes in every state. The legitimacy of a democratic country rests on just and fair laws for the people, as Professor Randy Barnett wrote,
A constitution that lacks adequate procedures to ensure the justice of valid laws is illegitimate even if it was consented to by a majority …. 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]
Since the context of the lawsuit relates to the legal status and constitutionality of the HOA model of government, and to the statutes and CC&Rs “constitution” creating private contractual governments, did Bendt receive justice with a $500,000 award for the HOA president’s “pain and suffering? As applied to HOA statutes and Acts, will this Court heed US Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor’s dissent on the failure to uphold the Constitution?[iv]
“Presented with an application to enjoin a flagrantly unconstitutional law engineered to prohibit women from exercising their constitutional rights and evade judicial scrutiny . . . . Because the Court’s failure to act rewards tactics designed to avoid judicial review . . . .
“To circumvent it [the Constitution], the [Texas] Legislature took the extraordinary step of enlisting private citizens to do what the State could not . . . . It cannot be the case that a State can evade federal judicial scrutiny by outsourcing the enforcement of unconstitutional laws to its citizenry . . . .”
This case must be remanded to the trial court for consideration of the impact of HOA bias on the decision against Bendt.
[i] See HOA limited-purpose public directors and officers; The continuing saga of Bendt and public speech in HOAs; Pro Se Bendt amicus brief accepted by AZ Supreme Court.
[ii] Kosor v. Olympia Companies, NV No, 75669 (Dec. 31, 2020).
[iii] Randy Barnett, Restoring the Lost Constitution, Princeton Univ. Press, (2004).
[iv] Whole Woman’s v. Austion Reeve Jackson, 594 U. S. ____ (2021) Sotomayor R, J., dissenting, Supreme Court of the United States, No. 21A24 [September 1, 2021]. (Abortion case).