How authoritarianism operates in an HOA

The HOA legal structure and scheme is basically authoritarian in nature: strong central power, limited political freedoms, no accountability, and under the rule of man, not law. 

CCHAL[1] argues be careful of   “’rules’ put in place in the name of ‘health and safety.’  Yes, some – but not all – may be necessary, but the pandemic creates an environment for putting in place some repressive rules too.” And reading the Golden Rain proposed rules, yes, in my opinion also, they are repressive.

 1. Pay a $500 deposit to get the ball rolling;

2. Apply for a permit at least three days before a planned protest;

3. Pick a maximum one-hour time slot during the day for the demonstration;

4. Ensure all participants social distance and stay out of roadways;

5. Plan on paying for any damage and cleanup costs;

6. Host protests only in an area bounded by three roads.

Proposed only rule 4 can be argued as in the interest of members health, safety and welfare as the GR CEO stated to the East Bay Times “This comes back to safety.”[2]  Rule 5 comes across as intimidation as this topic is already contained within the governing documents, and assumes violence will occur. According to the article, indicating another overly broad sweep at restrictions, GR’s intent was directed at dealing with protestors, as occurred in May in regard to BLM, yet the rules apply to any gathering of members. Rules 3 and 6 appear to be arbitrary restraint on free speech.

Rule 1 is punitive and is in violation of California law enacted in 2017, SB 407,[3] as pointed out by CCHAL. In general, the GR board/trustees seem to have ignored the law and cannot say that they didn’t know the law.

According to East Bay, “Golden Rain CEO Tim O’Keefe told the committee that the Davis Sterling Act doesn’t apply here because the foundation is a private organization, not a ‘common interest’ area like a homeowner’s association.”  That’s an unbelievable and irresponsible falsehood by the GF CEO!  In the 2017 directly involving Golden Rain, the appellate court held,

“The court found that GRF is an ‘association’ subject to the Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act (Civ. Code, § 1350 et seq.) (the Davis-Stirling Act). fn. 1 We agree, and affirm.”  (Golden Rain Foundation v. Carol Franz, 163 Cal.App.4th 1141 (2008). (Plaintiffs were Leisure World members).

HOA members should understand that the common defense of BODs is “upon advice of attorney,” and in this case we hear that “the proposed rules had been reviewed by the organization’s attorney.”[4]  Are you aware of attorney rules of professional conduct?  You would be surprised what they have been getting away with as I inform readers in my post.[5]

Two things stand out in my mind, from years of studying and analyzing BOD motivations and defenses, many times supported by the HOA attorney’s opinion: these HOA boards/trustees are rogue BODs functioning with complete disregard of the laws.  HOA members BEWARE of your BOD and the opinions of its attorney!

Relevant sections of SB 407 include:

4515.  (a) It is the intent of the Legislature to ensure that members and residents of common interest developments have the ability to exercise their rights under law to peacefully assemble and freely communicate with one another and with others with respect to common interest development living or for social, political, or educational purposes.

(c) A member or resident of a common interest development shall not be required to pay a fee, make a deposit, obtain liability insurance, or pay the premium or deductible on the association’s insurance policy, in order to use a common area . . . .

(d) A member or resident of a common interest development . . . may bring a civil or small claims court action to enjoin the enforcement of a governing document.  The court may assess a civil penalty of not more than five hundred dollars ($500) for each violation.

There is no legitimate justification for GF’s proposed rule changes except to assert its power and control over the members. In general, including GR, HOA boards are authoritarian and supported by too many members who are authoritarian followers.  In order to successfully deal with the unjust powers and authority of BODs,  the legislators, the public, and HOA members in particular  need to read and understand the social and political culture of HOAs. Visit my posts on authoritarianism in HOA-Land.[6]

References

---

[1] Marjorie Murray, email letter of July 26, 2020,  Center for California Homeowner Association Law (info@calhomelaw.org).

[2] Annie Sciacca, “Want to protest at Rossmoor? Schedule it during business hours,” East Bay Times, July 10, 2020.  

[3] Chapter 236, California Revised Code (2017), SB 407. http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB407

[4] Id.

[5] See my post,  A lesson in professional conduct for HOA attorneys (2020).

[6] George K. Staropoli, HOAs undermine principles of democratic America (2020); Authoritarianism in the HOA-Land Nation (2020).

 

A lesson in professional conduct for HOA attorneys

While there are many anecdotal claims of attorneys for HOAs acting unprofessionally and unethically, there are sufficient instances documenting such conduct.  I have encountered and witnessed some myself. Few have been charged to my knowledge. 

The most common, in my experience,  is a violation of civil court procedure where the attorney churns the account, seeks many continuances, and raises dubious claims based on the extension of commonly accepted legal doctrine and terminology.  Fortunately, I am not an attorney and need not concern myself with extending “professional courtesies” to my opponents.

The questionable conduct I am addressing can be found in federal rules and in various state 1) supreme court Rules of Professional Conduct, usually under Rule 42, E. R. 1.13, Organization as a Client, and 2) under Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 11(b), Signing pleadings . . . Representations to the Court.

Rule 11(b) states (emphasis added), in short,

“By signing a pleading . . . the attorney or party certifies that to the best of the person’s knowledge, information, and belief formed after reasonable inquiry:

“[I]t is not being presented for any improper purpose . . . or needlessly increase the cost of litigation . . . and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument . . .  the factual contentions have evidentiary support  . . . the denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence.”

Rule E.R. 1.13 states (emphasis added), in short,

“(a) A lawyer employed or retained by an organization [HOA] represents the organization acting through its duly authorized constituents [the BOD].

“(b) If a lawyer for an organization knows that an officer, employee or other person associated with the organization is engaged in action. . . that is a violation of a legal obligation to the organization [directors duties for example], or a violation of law . . . the lawyer shall refer the matter to higher authority in the organization.”

* * * *

I am quite pleased with the opinion by the Arizona Appellate Court in Arizona Biltmore Hotels Condo Assn v. Conlon (CACV 18-0709, June 23, 2020). This involved case of over 10 years, multiple parties, and 3 lawsuits dealt with a conflict of interest by the association’s president. He also owned several properties (a dual role conflict) subject to claims of who would get parking lot rental income.

My point of interest lies in the Court’s inclusion of a statement by the attorney for the association president in  the 2013 lawsuit and used as evidence in the current case.  Here we find a highly regarded law firm standing by its obligations under professional conduct and certification to the court, as above.

The president hired Cheifetz, Iannitelli & Marcolini, CIM,  (now Iannitelli Marconi) on behalf of the association.   “CIM soon raised concerns about the merits of the Association’s lawsuit and shared those concerns in a letter to [the president]” who did not pass the concerns to the board.   As required, if CIM believed that there were serious concerns, it brought their concerns to the board a year later.

Now removed as president and still a director and still owner of the TCG firm in conflict, the Courted quoted CIM’s position in this president gone wrong case.

“CIM became frustrated with [the president/director] strategy and told him:

“Our duty is not to [TCG], it is to our client, the Villas Association, and the [condominium] community as a whole. As a member of the Board you have fiduciary duties. Given these fiduciary duties, we are at a complete loss to understand upon what basis you deem it appropriate to intentionally seek to sabotage the Board’s efforts to attempt to resolve the pending lawsuit with . . . . ”

The 2013 Court found the director guilty. It held “that [he] both breached his fiduciary duties and negligently misrepresented facts to the Association . . . controlled the information and did not make full and necessary disclosures.”

* * * *

FYI — The “Cheifetz” above is none other than Steve Cheifetz, former CIM manager now retired, with whom I’ve had the pleasure of knowing and exchanging views on HOA law and cases.  He worked closely with Jonathan Dessaules, another outstanding Arizona attorney taking on homeowner cases.