HOA foreclosures and unclean hands

I’ve come across a few cases involving the markedly low HOA auction price as compared to the market value of the home. Previously, I compared this situation to the US Supreme Court’s finding that punitive awards more than 10 times the damages violates the 8th Amendment and constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. (See State Farm v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408 (2003)). But other decisions pertaining directly to foreclosures, which did not address the 8th Amendment, are also to be considered.

In the 1984 Tennessee Supreme Court non-HOA case, Holt v. Citizens Central Bank (688 S.W.2d 414), the court reversed long standing doctrine regarding foreclosure sales.  The view that “a price of ten percent of the fair market value would probably shock the conscience of any court” and “that inadequacy of consideration so great as to shock the conscience of the court, standing alone, was sufficient to warrant voiding the sale” was thrown out.  In place, the court held, along with decisions in Texas and North Carolina, that

If a foreclosure sale is legally held, conducted and consummated, there must be some evidence of irregularity, misconduct, fraud, or unfairness on the part of the trustee or the mortgagee that caused or contributed to an inadequate price, for a court of equity to set aside the sale.

The question for homeowners in foreclosure is whether or not the HOA comes with unclean hands[i]?  Are there elements of “irregularity, misconduct, fraud, or unfairness” on the part of the HOA?

In the Tennessee 2011 appellate case, Brooks v. Rivertown (No. W2011-00326-COA-R3-CV memorandum decision[ii]), the court upheld the denial of an HOA foreclosure because the HOA could not specify an exact amount owed. It upheld the Holt decision since it found irregularities in the HOA’s bookkeeping; and the HOA also failed to follow its required 30-day notice in non-judicial foreclosure, amounting to unclean hands.

For those in foreclosure, you need to ask for an accounting by the HOA, which must show your legitimate challenges to the HOA’s recordkeeping, like I paid but the HOA ignored me, etc.


[i] “The principle that a party cannot seek equitable relief or assert an equitable defense if that party has violated an equitable principle, such as good faith.” Black’s Law Dictionary, 7th Ed.

[ii] A memorandum decision means that no new law was made, and that just old law was applied.  Consequentially, there is no reason for binding precedent status.

Published in: on October 4, 2014 at 8:24 am  Comments (2)  
Tags: , , ,

HOA Common Sense, No. 8: Draconian punishment and intimidation

Draconian punishment and intimidation, No. 8

The Tennessee appellate court in Brooks found “that the foreclosure sale price shocked the conscience of the court.[i] A home valued at over $321,000 was foreclosed for just $12,800 of which $6,734, more than half, went directly into the attorney’s hands.[ii]  That’s more than 25 times the “damages” to the HOA. The Charleston Regional Business Review reported that the average foreclosure debt was about $4,500 and the average home value foreclosed was about $160,000, or 36 times the debt.

An award of more than the 10 times for punitive damages was held by the US Supreme Court in State Farm v. Campbell[iii]  to be a cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the 8th Amendment.  This right to foreclose in unjust and draconian, taking away a person’s home and leaving him with nothing!   It is unconscionable and discriminatory as explained below. Furthermore, HOAs assessments are considered a consensual lien and are exempt from homestead protections. (See paper No.4 above, speaking about your legitimate consent to be bound.)

With respect to HOA foreclosures, we once again discover that HOA assessments are being treated the same as public government taxes and property assessments — must be paid and your property can be foreclosed for non-payment. Both taxes and HOA assessments are not related to hard cash payments for which the lender is entitled to foreclosure to protect his loan, nor are they based on any specific transactions, like payments for garbage collection, for electricity, or for police protection, etc. 

Why should the HOA be given this right when other entities do not have foreclosure rights, and when there are other available collection methods — garnishment, sale of other property, etc. — to collect on bad debts?  Other entities, both public and private, must face the possibility of failure or bankruptcy – there are no guarantees in life.  A standard accounting procedure, and used by CAI Central in its financial statements, is what is called “Bad debts reserve” or “Reserves for bad debts,” which is an annual estimate of uncollected assessments.

Using common sense, we can understand the value to the HOA to “evict” the non-payer and to replace him with a new owner who will make timely assessment payments.  That’s logical. There is very little opportunity to raise additional funds for expenses except by means of increased assessments on other members, the “it’s not fair” argument. While the end of the foreclosure action has a rational value, the means is highly suspect. 

In addition to the arguments of special rights as enjoyed by public entities and an unconscionable punishment, HOA foreclosures are discriminatory.  The following quote is from an Arizona CAI attorney:

Assuming foreclosure eligibility requirements are met, whether foreclosure is a viable option depends largely on what other liens, interests, and encumbrances burden the subject property. . . .If the property is not subject to a mortgage or there is a minimal first mortgage, foreclosure is a viable option as there is likely equity in the property. . . . Even if the property is subject to a recorded first mortgage and there is no equity in the property, foreclosure still may be a viable option. Sometimes the threat of foreclosure alone is enough to get a delinquent owner’s attention. . . . the owner will often pay the association in order to keep his/her home.[iv]

This is an admission of the discriminatory nature of the foreclosure process — works only if the homeowner was an upstanding citizen who had paid his mortgage and assessments for many years, and had created all that equity that the HOA now seeks. It is also an admission of the punitive and intimidation motives of the HOA — “the owner will often pay the association in order to keep his/her home” — without facing the reality that “you can’t get blood from a turnip”! The HOA attorneys promote the view that the non-payers are scofflaws and deadbeats who are seeking to stick it to the good, assessment paying members. “It isn’t fair!” goes the cry.

What the foreclosure process does do, and is not mentioned by the CAI attorney, is that the attorney can claim fees many times in excess of the amounts owed the HOA. So, who really benefits? Certainly not the homeowner who loses everything with this draconian punishment. And there are other methods available to collect bad debts, and if not viable, well, then that’s the cost of doing business.

Is this good public policy to treat homeowners facing hardship not of their doing — take away their home and leave them with nothing?  Legislation must be put into place to protect against intimidation and wrongful foreclosure, and to ensure a strict enforcement of the foreclosure process, especially requiring documentation and an exact specification of the undisputed debt owed.  If the state legislatures truly believe that HOAs are the next best thing to Mom’s apple pie, they should be ready to ante up and financially support HOAs facing financial difficulties.  Perhaps in this way homeowners will get the accountability to the state and the requisite oversight of HOAs.

As to the broader solution, there is a just and compassionate legal solution to this state of affairs that can be put into place quickly and effectively. Allow the homestead exemption for HOA assessments!  If a state has no homestead protection, simply enact one ASAP!  This is a fair, compassionate, and sensible solution.  I anticipate strong opposition to this proposal, but I remind the opponents to be prepared to address the unclean hands of the HOA as summarized in this Common Sense series of papers.

PS.  I apologize for the intrusion by WordPress to have added underlines to certain words.


[iii] Id.

Obstacles to effective HOA reform legislation

Jim Lane, a NC HOA reform activist and website owner of Alliance of Homeowners Associations and Owners, asked the following HOA reform questions on the LinkedIn HOA group:

What are the three biggest “issues” (be specific)? What is standing in the way of resolving them? What should Owners be doing? How?

A good understanding of the issues surrounding HOA reform legislation requires expanded answers to these questions.  There are too many dogmatic mantras being espoused that are not supported by any convincing evidence, like “move out, “no contract interference,” “you agreed to be bound,” etc.  I can only provide an outline of my answers to these questions.  A deeper understanding can come from a study and analysis of my Commentaries over the years since 2004. (A keyword search is available).

First question: Essentially, I have identified 5 fundamental areas that require substantive reform legislation; legislation, if enacted would produce a trickle-down effect on many of the more serious issues confronting homeowner rights, freedoms, privileges and immunities allegedly waived or surrendered by homeowners.

They are:

  1. HOA foreclosure (cruel and unusual punishment; suspect category)
  2. Lack of due process protections (eliminate HOA banana republic justice)
  3. No clean elections laws for HOAs (eliminate HOA banana republic elections)
  4. No penalties against HOA board violations (equal application of the laws; detriment serving as a check and balance on HOA board violations)
  5. Wrongful application of a valid consent to agree (misapplication of the domination of servitudes law over constitutional and contract laws to make the HOA legal scheme work)

A failure to attain these broad, fundamental reforms will leave homeowner advocates at the continued mercy and whims of their legislatures, who are all pro-HOA.

Second question:  The answer to this question will disturb many, many homeowners and HOA reform advocates.  First, the 40 year-old national lobbying organization, Community Associations Institute (CAI) has dominated state legislatures. CAI has advocated its personal agenda under the guise of making for a better America, and a fear mongering not to support reform advocates who will kill your HOA and cause a loss in your property values.[1]  And then there was the inappropriate mass merchandising of the defective HOA concept to generate profits for the HOA promoters.

Second, like the German people who allowed the Nazi party to gain control over the most cultural and scientific country at that time,[2] homeowners jumped at the carrots being offered by the mass merchandisers and ignored the stick of a decline in democratic institutions and constitutional protections.  Many believed that they were good people supporting what was good for the community and the state, just like the German people eagerly believed.

The denial of the reality of the HOA legal scheme is a common behavior when a person’s self- image is being destroyed or radically altered.  When one’s self-image serves as the basis of how that person sees himself to be, many owners accepting the reality of the HOA concept would be destroyed. Their reactions would be an outright denial to the point of irrationality.  To say that their cherished HOA is a wrongful legal concept that is not for the betterment of society is too say that they are wrongful people not working for the betterment of society.  And they will not accept that. They will not accept the fact that they, like the emperor in The Emperor’s New Clothes,[3] were conned so they will continue to ignore reality and live in denial.

We see this reaction when pro-HOA supporters are pushed to defend their positions and they cannot, so they react with, essentially, an I don’t care attitude.

Third and Fourth questions:  The homeowners must, themselves, face this reality and become enlightened.  They must unite and stop the continued influence of CAI on their legislature.[4]  The homeowners must become proactive to enlighten and change public opinion that HOAs are not the next best thing to Mom’s apple pie.




[1] There are existing laws in every state that would enable HOA to maintain their unique relevance to the subdivision in terms of private rules and amenities, etc., but would return HOA to our American system of government.  However, that would mean CAI would lose much of its dominance and influence over HOAs. See A proposal for the “Muni-zation” of HOAs; Stop developers from granting private government charters.

[3] The Emperor’s New Clothes, Mindfully.org (http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/Emperors-New-Clothes.htm), June 7, 2012.

Published in: on October 15, 2013 at 10:43 am  Comments (2)  
Tags: , , , , , , ,

Why should taxpayers pay private entity HOA assessments? It ain’t fair!

Good golly Miss Molly, what are we gonna do?  What are we gonna do?  If state governments refuse to pay assessments on HOA property it owns by foreclosure, how is the HOA to survive?  The “stakeholders”, which does not mean the owners but all those vendors who feed off the HOA income streams, are aghast! How are we gonna make a living?  How are we gonna make a living?  Good golly Miss Molly!

A Tennessee bill is proposing an exception to its laws to exempt the state from having to pay HOA assessments on properties that it took over by foreclosure. “But state lawmakers are considering a bill that hands those foreclosure charges to the rest of the homeowners’ association instead of the municipality. What it does is increase the cost to the homeowner.” (TN bill would pass foreclosure fees to neighborhoods). 

Um, what happened to the battle cry in favor of HOA foreclosure, “It ain’t fair for others to pay for deadbeat homeowners?”  Why should taxpayers not living in the private contractual HOA governed community, with its private amenities, pay for deadbeat HOAs?  It ain’t fair! 

As with any business enterprise, when times are good all defects are masked and hidden from daily concerns.  Policies, procedures, rules and regulations, and the legal structure and purpose of the entity can escape serious concern.  The world is good.  HOWEVER, when things start falling apart, like the financial quagmire facing HOAs, the poorly formed and drafted organizations functioning under faulty premises and legal structure start falling apart.  And this is what is happening to defective HOA legal concept.

I cannot count the number of times state legislators told homeowners that they had agreed to a contract and now that it is working against them they want the legislature change that contract. NO, was the position of the legislator.  Well, the nature of the CC&Rs contract is defective as it imposes a financial liability on the members much like a partnership with its joint and severable liability on all the partners. Also, the member liability is much like buying stock in a small closely-held business with limited ability to raise additional funds except from the members themselves.  It’s all part of the “deal.”  Didn’t the national pro-HOA lobbying organization explain that to you?

Or, were you just told that the HOA was a great way to preserve property values?

And let’s not forget that state legislatures have granted the HOA “special dispensation” in terms of special laws for a special entity – no oversight and very little HOA accountability.  They have played their part in creating the HOA financial quagmire.  Instead of a city or two going bankrupt, the state has set the stage for hundreds of communities governed by HOAs to go bankrupt. 

For the state to pay assessments would be like throwing good money after bad money.

Published in: on May 17, 2013 at 7:38 am  Leave a Comment  
Tags: , , , , , , ,

North Carolina: second battleground for people’s rights in HOAs

North Carolina is proud that it was the first state to vote for independence from Great Britain (Halifax Resolves, 1775).  Today, some 238 years later, another battle for independence from oppressive government has commenced in the NC General Assembly.  This time, it is the people subjected to authoritarian, oppressive private HOA governments who seek equal justice with regard to safeguarding their homes against HOA foreclosure.  This time, it is the citizens of North Carolina who seek a redress of their grievances against the NC General Assembly that has supported, and continues to support, special laws for special groups.

In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms; our repeated petitions have only been answered by repeated injury. (Decl. of Indep.).

Today, the NC assembly has two HOA bills before it, HB 175 and HB 331:  one seeks to impose harsher terms for HOA foreclosure rights, HB 331, and the other seeks to remove the unconscionable right of HOAs to foreclose, HB 175.  While NC currently allows unconscionable nonjudicial foreclosure, HB 331 would now put the HOA in the same position of a Trustee holding a deed of trust with the “power of sale,” which amounts to an auction sale without having to go to court. This amounts to putting the HOA in the same position not only as the mortgage holder, but as the trustee as well.

The bill further proscribes new foreclosure procedures that supersede the general NC foreclosure statutes, just for HOA foreclosures. There is nothing in the detailed procedures contained in 4 pages of the bill that addresses any procedures for the homeowner to contest the amount of debt being foreclosed by the HOA.   What does the simple phrase, as used in the bill, “if not contested” mean?

On the other side of the battle-line, HB 175 does away with special foreclosure rights just for HOAs. And rightfully so!  The right to foreclose has been argued on the basis of the need to collect assessments – read HOA “taxes” — so the HOA can survive.  Well, this argument could apply to any nonprofit that seeks to foreclose in order to survive.  But, there are no such laws protecting these nonprofits from failure, is there? And these nonprofit, charitable, and educational corporations can argue that they provide a public service, while the HOA provides services to a private group of people, only its members.

Other arguments against HOA foreclosure rights include:

  1. The HOA has not advanced any hard funds like a bank, yet it is treated as a public entity with the right to foreclose on the nonpayment of “taxes.”  But, the Assembly does not feel the need for checks and balances on the HOA board for this grant of special powers.
  2. The US Supreme Court has held that punitive damages, which the foreclosure essentially amounts to, in excess of 10 times the actual damages, violated the 8th amendment’s prohibition on the infliction of cruel and unusual punishments.  For example:  Foreclosing on a $2,000 debt, of which $500 is the actual assessment debt, on a home valued at $140,000 amounts to a whopping 70 times the debt.
  3. Foreclosure discriminates and is essential an intimidation and punitive measure that is effective only on certain members and not others – only those who have paid their mortgage over the years so that the HOA can collect funds in excess of the existing mortgage.  Is it fair for the good people who have paid and paid not only their mortgage but their HOA dues over the years to lose their home?  I think not!  But, on the other hand we hear their self-righteous chant that it’s “unfair for others to pay for deadbeats” who are behind in their assessments.  There seems to be a huge disconnect here.

I cannot entirely blame the members for this attitude, because they have been deceived. They have never been told the facts about the possible adverse financial conditions that could lead to holding them legally obligated for the debts of others.  HOA membership is like buying into a small, privately held business that has limited ability to exit or to raise additional funds if needed.  Also, the HOA is similar to a partnership where each member is jointly and severally obligated for the debts of the HOA. 

If some members cannot meet their “fair share,” any deficiency will be made up from those who can afford to pay.  These additional funds, like now being needed by many HOAs, can only come from existing members, which can be imposed upon them through the courts.

Also, I cannot reconcile this obsession by members against letting the deadbeats get away with not paying their HOA debts that often amount to less than $2,000, but who say nothing when their HOA spends $5,000 – $100,000 in attorney fees  pursuing trivial lawsuits against minor and questionable violations of rules.  We see these cases in the media quite frequently.  Something is wrong with the attitudes of members in HOAs, definitely wrong!  The attitude of the HOA members themselves is discriminatory and unconscionable.

Which direction will the General Assembly take?  For the people by ending the unconscionable and discriminatory HOA rights to foreclose, or for the  defective HOA legal structure that denies homeowner protections?