class action against HOA? not really

For those wondering about class action suits, they are only possible within an HOA IF 40 plus members sign-on. Here’s a summary of requirements:

The Georgia Federal District Court held that the Plaintiff met the four requirements for class certification under Federal Rule 23(a), specifically:

1. Numerosity – Plaintiffs allege more than 100 class members and 40 is generally sufficient;
2. Commonality – the excess interest rate charges is common and can be “uniformly determined” and the excess sums charges is a close decision, but for now the Plaintiffs meet this “low burden”;
3. Typicality – The claims of Plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the class; and
4. Adequate Representation – the Plaintiffs can adequately protect the interests of those they purport to represent, and the Court did not find any conflict of interest as argued by Defendant.

As for CAI, it’s possible for a RICO again, IF, the above criteria are met. Given the lack of involvement by HOA groups across the country, this is not going to happen.

HOA-Land Nation publication to aid constitutionality

The important question of HOA constitutionality has generally been avoided and given token lip serve by all interested parties: homeowners, homeowner rights advocates, state legislators, real estate departments, attorney generals, nonprofit private entities proclaiming a defense of the Constitution, and the media at large.

Even the renowned Wayne Hyatt’s^[1] statement in 1976 went ignored.

“One clearly sees the association as a quasi-government entity paralleling in almost every case the powers, duties, and responsibilities of a municipal government.   All of these functions are financed through assessments or taxes levied upon the members of the community, with powers vested in the board of directors, council of co-owners, board of managers, or other similar body clearly analogous to the governing body of a municipality.”[2]

Clearly challenging the constitutionality of the HOA model of local government and legal scheme is well beyond past due. To correct this horrific and inexcusable oversight I have published, The HOA-Land Nation Within America,[3] a white paper, an exposé of the HOA legal scheme violations of the Constitution. The eBook and paperback editions can be found on Amazon.

This task of constitutional HOA reforms may appear overwhelming and almost impossible to achieve, but constitutional HOA reforms can happen. It will take tremendous effort and perseverance, and a “never give up” mentality. David Cole passionately makes this point[4]

“If Americans now and in the coming years insist that . . . our most fundamental values, including equality, human dignity, fair process, privacy, and the rule of law, and if we organize and advocate in defense of those principles,” we will succeed in bringing about the necessary fundamental and constitutional reforms to the HOA legal scheme in existence since the HOA “bible” was released in 1964. In order to accomplish this important task, “it will take a persistent civil society, a vigilant media, brave insiders, and judges and other government officials who take seriously their responsibility to uphold the Constitution. But first and foremost, it will take an engaged citizenry.”

“The defense of liberty depends . . . on citizens engaging collectively to fight for the values they believe in. . . . The preservation of liberty through a written constitution . . . has survived . . . because ‘we the people’ have consistently taken up the charge to define, defend, and develop liberty in our own image, so that it reflects our deepest commitment , not just those of a privileged elite who do not represent us.”

It falls upon the homeowners in HOAs, as has always, to advance constitutional arguments that are valid and credible.    And that takes knowledge and understanding of the issues.  The HOA-Land Nation, and other of my publications and Commentaries, as well as those of others, provide the “ammunition” that will pass the valid and credible challenges to be expected from CAI and other lawyers, provided the arguments do not get bogged down in irrelevant arguments from the opposition.

CAI cannot handle a broad Bill of Rights challenge. Period!  I have never been challenged  by CAI because they well know that they are defending the defenseless.

Read the book, paperback or eBook, and spread the word.  Use it in those many HOA violations where state statutes support the HOA.  Work to hold seminars and conferences to openly discuss the issues raised in The HOA-Land Nation.  Expose their defense of HOAs, now!

 Notes

[1] Wayne Hyatt was a prominent figure in the promotion of HOA-Land as well as an important person in creating CAI in 1973, serving as its second president.

^[2] I have extensively quoted Wayne Hyatt’s 1976 statement on HOAs as mini-governments, as cited in the 1983 California case, Cohen v. Kite Hill.

[3] I have concluded that there exists an HOA-Land Nation within America that is comprised of fragmented and local HOA governments across the country and have designated them collectively as “HOA-Land.”  The commonality of their declarations of CC&Rs, flowing from the 1964 Homes Association Handbook (ULI publication), their shared beliefs, values, traditions, and institutions qualify HOA-Land as a nation.

[4] David Cole, National Legal Director of the ACLU, Engines of Liberty, Basic Books (2016).

AZ SB 1088 is an unconstitutional and selective impairment of a contract bill

Arizona’s SB 1088 bill seeks to invalidate CC&Rs that require approval by a homeowner to allow any visitor access to the homeowner.  It specifically deals with — and is only meaningful with respect to gated communities which are gated for a very good reason — not hindering process servers access to a homeowner defendant.  It is punitive with a $250 “civil penalty” for anyone violating this law.

Background 

Under our laws and judicial system a plaintiff must service notice of a lawsuit upon a defendant as required by the Constitution.[1]  It is well known that there are people who act to avoid being served notice, which stops any lawsuit from moving forward. However, the law does allow for posting the summons notice to the public notices page of a newspaper in the event the defendant cannot be personally contacted.[2]

Impairing the obligation of contracts

The proponents’ argument would be generally along the lines that “due process under the law” triumphs over any contract infringement violation as a matter of public policy and for the general good of the people. An HOA covenant cannot hinder constitutional due process of law and the equal application of the law to a person, not necessarily an HOA, who is suing a defendant in such an HOA.  It’s not fair they would cry, referring to the greater good served outside the HOA.

But, the bill seems to be unnecessary as there are other means to satisfy civil procedure process servers.  It would also not pass judicial scrutiny[3] required to deny constitutional rights under contract infringement.  The bill seems to be sponsored as a request from a constituent facing some problem that lacks merit, considering the alternative methods available for service notice by process servers.

Selective enforcement of the law

It is long held doctrine that a government cannot pick and choose what laws to enforce or to ignore, and still be seen as a legitimate government.  The entirety of the covenants in a declaration of CC&Rs — allegedly constituting the voice of the people in a private contract to not be bound by the Constitution and the laws of the land — contains many, many covenants that violate the protected rights of the people.

Yet the state stands idly by and does nothing to end these private contractual violations of the constitution’s requirement for the equal protection of the law.  The CC&Rs are a mockery of due process protections, of fair elections, of eminent domain protections, of cruel and unusual punishment by foreclosure rights, of contract law misrepresentation and full disclosure violations, of the failure to provide civil penalties against HOA violations of the law, etc.

They are either ignored or have the “blessings” of the legislature as a result of laws that coerce compliance with the HOA, cooperate with the HOA, or closely interact with the day-to-day operations of the HOA. Any of which would make the HOA a state actor subject to the Constitution.

SB 1088 is a selective impairment of contract obligations while other infringements of the laws are allowed to stand. Adopting this bill would be a mockery of the law.

 

References

[1] 14^th Amendment, “Nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”

[2] Ariz. R. Civ. P., 4.1(n). “Where the person being served . . . has avoided service of process . . . then service may be by publication  . . . . “ Also, Rule 4.1(m) allows for “alternative or substituted service.”

[3] Judicial scrutiny relating to constitutional rights requires a compelling and necessary government interest, not a general government interest, to deny protected rights.  See, in general, Arizona’s HB 2382 is an unconstitutional violation of eminent domain law.

AZ amicus brief seeking answers to constitutional HOA questions denied

A constitutionality challenge[1] was made to Arizona’s SB 1482 “HOA Omnibus Bill” (ominous bill), the 2014 version of SB 1454 from last year.[2]   Although the law has become effective this past July 24^th, the case is still active.  Yours truly filed an amicus curiae brief in superior court on behalf of the Pro Se plaintive, Dave Russell, to which the Arizona Attorney General, lawyer for the State of Arizona, found objectionable. The judge denied my motion to file the brief.

The AG objected under a too one-sided against Arizona argument (complete objection).

Defendant, State of Arizona, opposes George K. Starapoli’s Motion for Leave to File Amicus

Brief in this matter for the following reasons:

1. There is no authority to file an Amicus Brief in this matter in the superior court.

2. It would be prejudicial to the State to allow the brief to be filed at this time. The State has responded to the Plaintiffs Motion for Expedited Preliminary Injunction, and that Motion could be considered based on the documents already filed by the parties. To allow the brief to be filed would prolong the process, require additional response, and potentially confuse the issues.

 

I did not refer to the Injunction, but the complaint itself, so what gives??  What does “potentially confuse the issues” mean?  Too much for the AG or judge to handle???

On the 28th, the judge ruled (complete minute entry),

 

On July 11, 2014, George Staropoli filed a “Motion for Leave to File an Amicus Curiae Brief in Support of the Plaintiff”. The Court has reviewed this motion and considered the circumstances. Under the circumstances,

IT IS ORDERED denying the above-identified motion.

What does “under the circumstances mean?????    Was it too confusing for the court to handle????

 

I was informed that a leading public interest nonprofit that has argued before the Arizona Supreme Court has had its amicus briefs to the Superior Court also denied.  I expected as much, but I had hoped for a dissertation as to why the denial beyond “under the circumstances.”

 

The issues that I raised in my amicus brief were:

 

• Is a bill allowing HOA managers to represent HOAs while prohibiting the homeowner to engage an unlicensed and untrained third-party to speak for them in small claims court an unconstitutional special law in violation of the equal protection of the law under the US and Arizona Constitutions? (SB 1482, Section 7).

 

• Do the renter documentation requirements and restrictions constitute an unconstitutional interference with private agreements as it creates more harm to the homeowners than the benefits of an unstated government interest?  (SB1482, Sections 11 and 15).

 

The court must still decide on the injunction to not enforce the bill (or the part dealing with HOA managers in small claims court), which it cannot do because Rule 31 of the Arizona Supreme Court forbids non-lawyers from representing anyone in court, including small claims court.  And the Constitution says the SC controls its procedures and not the legislature!  So, folks, what’s the fuss all about?

 

What this incident has demonstrated is the use of the law by the AG and an eagerly cooperative court.  Was my brief so harmful to the State of Arizona’s case that the truth must be hidden?  Or was my brief valid because the overwhelming facts and background presented made a strong case for the tyranny of the legislature that resulted in an unconstitutional law, a law which was motivated by domineering HOA stakeholders, the special interests?

What my little exercise has demonstrated is the silence on the part of our government.  Why?  Because like an HOA they don’t have too!  A law is constitutional because the ‘sovereign,’ the legislature, has spoken and can do no wrong.   Like an HOA, the state well knows it cannot make a valid and compelling justification for the bill in question, SB 1482.  Any such attempt would demonstrate to all that the State of Arizona was defending the indefensible.  So, mum’s the word.

How does a citizen successfully argue his case when the State’s defense is, “Because I can!”

 

 

References

[1] See the complaint, Russell v. State of Arizona, CV2014-093-052 (Maricopa County Superior Court).

[2] See in general: A lesson in HOA reforms and power politics in AZ; AZ legislature fails to remove invalid statutes from its ARS web page.

The unclean hands of the HOA

I have spoken of the unclean hands of the HOA in “HOA Common Sense No.4, Consent to be governed” and in “No.8, Draconian punishment and intimidation.”  Unclean hands is a legal doctrine that denies a plaintiff’s (HOA) complaint if the plaintiff has done anything wrongful or unfair relating to the issue at hand. If a defendant (homeowner) can show the plaintiff had “unclean hands,” the plaintiff’s complaint will be dismissed or the plaintiff will be denied judgment.

In his dissenting opinion in Olmstead v US  (1928)[1] Justice Brandeis wrote (my emphasis),

The governing principle has long been settled. It is that a court will not redress a wrong when he who invokes its aid has unclean hands. The maxim of unclean hands comes from courts of equity. But the principle prevails also in courts of law. Its common application is in civil actions between private parties. Where the government is the actor, the reasons for applying it are even more persuasive.

The court’s aid is denied only when he who seeks it has violated the law in connection with the very transaction as to which he seeks legal redress. Then aid is denied despite the defendant’s wrong. It is denied in order to maintain respect for law; in order to promote confidence in the administration of justice; in order to preserve the judicial process from contamination.

This doctrine also applies to the government at all levels.  As Brandeis continued in his dissent,

In a government of laws, existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy.

And it also applies to HOA private governments, because it’s an equitable protection.  We all know that HOA boards have, in all too many instances, grossly dirty unclean hands.  We see the anarchy with 50 different state laws and the 324,000, more or less, independent CC&Rs “constitutions.”

 

Note

[1] Olmstead v. U.S., 277 U.S. 438 (1928).  This case involved federal wiretapping, which back in 1928, the SC found no violation of the Constitution.