Explaining HOA member irrationality – the BOD can do no wrong

My concern, since I was a teenager, was how do people make decisions and important choices, and why. It should be generally accepted today that we are facing a lot of harmful irrationality in many aspects of our society. It would seem, addressing the conduct, behavior and choices made by members of HOAs with respect to their HOA, and to the institution of HOAs in general, that the adage “My rationality is your irrationality and vice versa” is at play.  (What you consider rational I consider irrational, and what you consider irrational I consider rational).

My many years of activism in HOA reform legislation and research into this issue led me to the strong belief that the forces and dynamics of cult behavior[1] and authoritarianism[2] were the chief factors in the behavior of HOA members; the majority of whom seem to act in a highly irrational manner that was harmful to their own self-interests – the HOA can do no wrong.

Well, thank goodness Steven Pinker[3] makes some sense of rationality by delving into the functioning of the mind from a cognitive psychologists point of view.[4]  (It’s like trying to explain why the chicken crossed the road). Having a minor in psychology, I describe Pinker’s presentation as rather deep being directed more to  Rationality 201 or even higher, Rationality 301, using college level course structure. The “meat” of his book, for my purposes, comes in Chapter 10, What’s Wrong With People, when he comes down to the level of the average person.

From the very start Pinker makes it clear that the average person does not understand scientific investigation, the mathematics of probability, formal logic analysis, syllogisms, forecasting, etc..  He simply uses his gut feelings, his intuition,  which has always been mankind’s way of thinking.

Summarizing the author’s views, using annotations to simplify his learned arguments,

“To be sure, many superstitions originate in overinterpreting coincidences, failing to calibrate evidence against priors, overgeneralizing from anecdotes, and leaping from correlation to causation. [In more common terms, failing to vet the claims or to conduct  due diligence].

“Social media may indeed be accelerating their spread, but the [appeal] lies deep in human nature: people . . .  compose these stories, and it’s people they appeal to.

“The mustering of [reasons] to drive an argument toward a favorable conclusion is called motivated reasoning. The motive may be to [support] a favorable conclusion, but [also to] flaunt the [other sides] wisdom, knowledge, or virtue.

“People seek out arguments that ratify their beliefs and shield themselves from those that might disconfirm them. [Emphasis added].

“A large majority of Americans consider themselves less susceptible to . . .  biases than the average American, and virtually none consider themselves more biased.”

Study the above statements by the author carefully. It should become apparent that they describe the why and how the bulk of HOA members blindly obey their HOA board of directors.  They also explain the cult mentality of and the authoritarian appeal by the members (see Notes below).  It demonstrates that the mindset of the majority of members is believing that their HOA is heaven on earth and the next best thing to Mom’s apple pie; they do not want that belief disturbed and— unconsciously — naturally adopt motivated reasoning to preserve their image of a better community, a better world.

Please understand the difference between a real estate condominium and planned subdivision with its desirable amenities, landscaping, and oversight on contractual violations from the association that is the authoritarian, governing body also commonly referred as the HOA.  The former can be retained under the protection of Constitution now denied to the HOA members.

Applying Pinker’s findings, did the Arizona Supreme Court act irrationally in its denial to review the Tarter v. Bendt Petition[5] filed by the homeowner?

Notes

---

[1] See Cult behavior within HOA-Land,  Escaping the HOA cult environment,  A Plan Toward Restructuring the HOA Model of Governance.

[2] See HOA political dynamics: totalitarian democracy and  Authoritarianism in the HOA-Land Nation.

[3] Steven Pinker, Rationality: What It Is, Why It Seems Scarce, Why It Matters, Viking (2021).

[4] Cognitive psychology is the scientific study of the mind as an information processor. Information processing in humans resembles that in computers, and is based on based on transforming information, storing information and retrieving information from memory. Cognitive Psychology.

[5] See AZ supreme court denies hearing HOA case raising limited-purpose public figure doctrine.

Will AZ Supreme Court address broad HOA issues of constitutionality?

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.

Notes

---

[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).

In Kosor the NV appellate court upholds HOAs as public forums

In January of this year I posted the Nevada Supreme Court’s opinion on HOAs as public forums and the president as a limited-purpose public figure (NV supreme court upholds HOAs as public forums).  Last month on an appeal (Olympia v. Kosor, No. A-17-765257-C (Nev. Ct. App. 2021) from the remand, to  let the trial court hear the case on above issues, the appellate Court upheld the supreme courts findings and opinion.

The tremendous constitutional question of free political speech on issues of HOA governance was upheld. Finally! In doing so, the Court also held, citing several cases that [note 1],

• [the HOA]  “is a quasi-government entity ‘paralleling in almost every case the powers, duties, and responsibilities of a municipal government.’”

• the Nevada Supreme Court has found the [the HOA] Board to be in the nature of a quasi-government entity largely paralleling the powers, duties, and responsibilities of a municipal entity and its meetings similar in function to a governmental body.

• homeowners’ associations open meetings are public forums as such associations play ’a critical role in making and enforcing rules affecting the daily lives of [community] residents.’”  

• “the HOA meetings at which Kosor made certain of the statements at issue were ‘public forums’ … because the meetings were ‘open to all interested parties, and … a place where members could communicate their ideas. Further, the…meetings served a function similar to that of a governmental body.”

• In deciding this Motion, this Court also concludes Plaintiffs at least constitute limited-purpose public figures.

• The test for determining whether someone is a limited public figure includes examining whether a person’s role in a matter of public concern is voluntary and prominent.” [as is the case with HOA boards and presidents]

• the issues Defendant raised involve efforts to encourage homeowner participation in and oversight of the governance of Southern Highlands, “an inherently political question of vital importance to each individual and to the community as a whole.”

. . . .

Your HOA cannot stop your free speech if you argue Kosor! Just be careful about making harsh, accusatory statements that violate elements of defamation that will  defeat your free speech.

NOTE 1. Damon v. Ocean Hills Journalism Club, 102 Cal. Rptr. 2d 205, 214 (2000); Cohen v. Kite Hill Cmty. Ass’n, 191 Cal. Rptr. 209, 214 (1983); Pegasus v. Reno Newspapers, Inc., 57 P.3d 82, 91 (2002).

The writing is on the wall for HOA reforms

Although the Arizona Supreme Court has not yet decided to hear Tarter v. Bend (CV 21-0049), my 44 page Pro Se amicus curiae brief is a matter of public record, regardless.  The case about a defamation suit by the HOA president, also an attorney and a limited-purpose public figure, raised constitutional issues of public speech with respect to questions of HOA governance. 

Selected excerpts follow.

As with the issue in Dombey (Dombey v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc) . . . failing to present the question of Tarter’s status as a possible public figure denied the jury from considering the issues of protected free speech on public issues.

Kosor (NV) was sued on the basis of his criticism  and distribution of a pamphlet and letter at a board meeting seeking a seat on the board of directors.

“Because we conclude that each of Kosor’s statements was “made in direct connection with an issue of public interest in a place open to the public or in a public forum,” we reverse the district court’s decision to the contrary and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”

The impetus behind this view can be laid to the heavy lobbying of state legislators, judges, the public and the media by the Community Associations Institute (CAI). From its 2016 white paper,

“Most legislators do not thoroughly understand common-interest communities or who their patchwork legislation is actually protecting. . . . Legislative responses to individual constituents contribute to community associations being perceived as over-restrictive micro-governments focused on covenant enforcement.”

In response to my Arizona Supreme Court pro se amicus brief in Gelb v. DFBLS (CV-10-0371-PR) CAI attorney Jason Smith wrote,

“It is clear from the that the amicus curiae [referring to me] simply wants to impose constitutional protections on members in homeowners associations. The law has never supported that proposition.”

[I called to the Court’s attention a question of a SLAPP lawsuit against Brendt.]  The issue of an HOA SLAPP lawsuit against a member is in the interest of general public and of statewide importance, and also of national concern, the impact on community associations is certainly substantial. This Court should, sua sponte, consider Tarter’s legal action as a HOA politically motivated strategic lawsuit  against member participation.

I urge the Court to apply the long overdue correction  of  Plessy v. Ferguson by Brown v. Bd of Education to the long overdue and needed corrections to the unconstitutional HOA legal scheme.  As with Brown, America’s culture and environment has changed dramatically from 1964’s Homes Association Handbook and the formation in 1973 of Community Associations Institute (CAI) to deal with rising HOA problems and constitutional concerns after only 9 years. 

Limited purpose public HOA board; slander; AZ HB 2052

This writing is not meant to scare homewners from expressing their political free speech rights regarding HOA governance issues, but to observe certain precautions.

I’m disturbed by the appellate court’s rejection of theappeal in Tarter v. Bendt with respect to limited purpose public figure immunity pertaining to complaints against an HOA. The homeowner’s  complaints consisted of verbal statements, written communications, and a newsletter.

If Arizona’s HB 2052 (to be voted on by the full House), as a start,  were law today I believe your outcome would have been favorable. In part, the bill  

Allows a member or group of members to organize to discuss or address planned community business, including the following: a) Board elections or recalls; b) Potential or actual ballot issues; c) Revisions to the community documents; d) Property maintenance e) Safety issues; or f) Any other community business or actions. (Sec. 1, 2)

(See more, Arizona HB 2052 restores homeowner constitutional speech protections).

My nonlawyer view is that the case was a harsh application of the laws in an instance of an entity that functions for all intents and purposes as a local government;  allowed to operate outside constitutional protections. It is not  an “as usual” slander/libel situation but was treated as such in a memorandum decision.

The crux of the opinion was,

The parties stipulated that Mr. Tarter, as the HOA president, was a limited purpose public figure. Thus, the Tarters were required to prove that Mrs. Bendt’s defamatory statements were “made with ‘actual malice’—that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.”

In spite of the homeowner’s loss, the case can serve as a hard lesson to other homeowners, warning them of the dangers of rambling against their HOA and board of directors,  as the Court saw it. It serves warning that ALL relevant issues be brought before the court at trial as they may not be allowed in an after-the-fact appeal.

The Court summarized the defamatory statements, as charged by the HOA,  consisting of:

The Tarters introduced evidence that Mrs. Bendt called Mr. Tarter “idiot,” “fool,” “spineless,” “disgusting,” “chicken shit,” “lowlife,” “low-class sneak,” “unethical,” “lazy,” “weak,” and “a complete fake” in front of fellow HOA members. . . . . Mrs. Bendt also disparaged Mr. Tarter’s legal education, insulted his alma matter, referred to him as a habitual liar, and unethical. Mrs. Bendt accused Mr. Tarter of violating his attorney ethical obligations, and wrote that he could be disciplined by the Arizona State Bar and investigated by the Attorney General (“AG”).

As the Court saw it, very important issues of compensatory and punitive damages were raised and found in favor of the HOA.  The court allowed large sums, totalling $1,500,000, for nonmonetary damages as harm to reputation and emotionsl stress, and others, so beware! 

Support HB 2052 to be soon voted in  the House COW; date to be set.

Legal Disclaimer

The information contained in this written or electronic communication, and our associated web sites and blog, is provided as a service to the Internet community and does not constitute legal advice or opinion. We perform legal research and case analysis services, but we make no claims, promises or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained in any report, finding, recommendation or any communication, or linked to this web site and its associated sites.  No document prepared by HALRIS or George K. Staropoli is to be considered a legal document to be filed in a court or in a legal proceeding. Nothing provided by HALRIS or George K. Staropoli should be used as a substitute for the advice of competent counsel.  George K. Staropoli and no person associated with HALRIS, AHLIS, HOA Constitutional Government or Citizens for Constitutional Local Government are attorneys nor are employed by an attorney.