State supreme court cases favor member rights and freedoms over HOA

I would like to thank Deborah Goonan on her post[1] covering two especially important state supreme court HOA cases, and her excellent reporting and analysis of the issues. My review and comments follow.

WDIS, LLC v. Hi-Country Estates Homeowners Ass’n, Phase II, 2022 UT 17 (Utah 2022)

Raised in this landmark case, but not directly addressed, is the constitutional validity of the CC&Rs that contain implicit waivers and surrenders of fundamental rights and freedoms that are available to and protect all Americans under the Constitution. At issue, as stated by the Utah SC in WDIS,

“More relevant to this case, future owners of parcels or homes within the jurisdiction of any HOA are not required to formally sign onto the restrictive covenants when they are first created. Instead, consumers (be they buyers, heirs, or lenders) are merely entitled to a take-it-or-leave-it option to accept ownership of the property, subject to whatever covenants and restrictions are on file in County records. By taking possession of the property, an owner is presumed to have accepted the restrictions as valid and enforceable.”

The “Landowners” raised the especially prominent issue of freedom of contract, raising the charge of CC&Rs as an unconstitutional contract. The Utah Supreme Court concluded:

“The protective covenants at issue were not contractual” because “they did not involve two parties agreeing to perform acts in relation to each other. We conclude that applying the presumption is appropriate.”

“The freedom to contract is implicated because the question we are resolving is whether parties “of full age and competent understanding” are free either to accept or reject those covenants later on. And there are other reasons, beyond the freedom of contract, to apply the presumption.”  

* * * *

Belmont Ass’n v. Farwig,  No. 214A21, 2022 NCSC 64 (N.C. 2022)

First, with respect to outwardly friendly HOA member legislation let me point out what we see here,  the bill/law usually contains an offsetting exception or exclusion that renders the homeowner benefits questionable or negates them under practical application. Obviously, anybody seeing solar panels on roofs know that they will be seen by the public. How can a court ignore that?

Also, watch out for Rules that cannot be supported by the CC&Rs and are invalid as the SC pointed out regarding an ARC rule. HOAs cannot add restrictions or conditions not specified or prohibited by the CC&Rs without a CC&Rs amendment.

Second, as I’ve repeatedly stated, state legislatures favor the HOA over member rights and constitutional protections. Thank God there are some courts who do seek justice like the NC  Supreme Court in this case that saw, in plain English, the subterfuge of “friendly” HOA member law.

Read the full post here:

1.  HOA Lawsuits: Property owner challenges to HOA boards (Part 2) – Independent American Communities, Deborah Goonan, Aug. 5, 2022.

Business judgment rule; understanding the courts

The intent of this title is to highlight the need to carefully read and understand legal documents –  knowing what is said and what is not said in statutes, in court decisions and opinions, and in contracts.  It is human nature for people to hear, see, or read what they want to and miss the real message.

Tutorial

If you seek to analyze, not merely read, a legal document then attentions must be paid to what I refer to as “word games.”  By that I mean the modification and extension of  the traditional meaning of words to support an argument or position; the parsing of sentences involving the effect of punctuations – commas, semi-colons, etc., — on phrases and clauses.

A simple example:

“I saw that she was busy and prepared to leave.
“I saw that she was busy, and prepared to leave.

“Without a comma, the reader is liable to think that “she” was the one who was prepared to leave.”

In the real world, documents can contain mult-line sentences with many commas and semi-colons, where your opponent will argue for one interpretation and you the other. In our example, who is right? The first or the second choice?  With many legal documents written by “writers,” the publicized author may not know at all. This happens often in complex legislative bills.

Business judgment rule (BJR)

(See below for an explanation of BJR).

Applying the above, let’s look at the wording of the WA Supreme Court’s recent opinion in Bangerter v. Hat Island that sidestepped the question of applying the business judgment rule to HOAs. 

At issue was plaintiff’s interpretation of the covenant for assessments that allowed the BOD “to charge and assess its members on an equitable basis.”  Bangerter said “equitable basis” meant at a rate based on home value, like your real estate tax; the BOD interpreted “equitable basis”  to mean the same assessment for all members.  The court held that the BOD’s interpretation was valid, deferring to the BOD as consistent with the BJR.

But here’s how the judges presented their decision:

Whether, and if so to what extent, the business judgment rule applies to homeowners’ associations is a thorny question. Given that we can affirm on any grounds, we decline to resolve that question here and wait for a case that more squarely presents it.

While courts do not owe deference to a homeowners’ association’s interpretation of its governing documents, courts do owe appropriate deference to their reasonable discretionary decisions. . . . Accordingly, there is no cause to consider whether the business judgment rule applies.

The first paragraph is, essentially, a “punt” — not going to deal with the issue.

Yet the first sentence of the second paragraph seems to be a rejection of the BJR.    What is the fine point that the court is making, the “hair splitting”? What is the effect of, the difference, in all practicality  between no “deference . . . [to] interpretations” and “deference to . . . discretionary decisions”?  

But wait! The court upheld the BJR with its deference to BOD decisions without saying so!  WOW! Go figure.

The second sentence is an astonishing declaration that the Court is not talking about the business judgment rule!  No wonder the average homeowner has a problem understanding what goes on in the mind of judges.  Confusing?  You bet!  On purpose, I wonder!

Business judgment rule explanation

The business judgment rule helps to guard a corporation’s board of directors (B of D) against frivolous legal allegations about the way it conducts business. A legal staple in common law countries, the rule states that boards are presumed to act in “good faith”—that is, within the fiduciary standards of loyalty, prudence, and care directors owe to stakeholders. Absent evidence that the board has blatantly violated some rule of conduct, the courts will not review or question its decisions. (Investopedia).

Related reading

If you wish to pursue a more detailed understanding of the pros and cons of BJR, please read   HOAs and the Business Judgment Rule: Bad Law and Reorienting the HOA board: business judgment rule

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. 

Pro Se Bendt amicus brief accepted by AZ Supreme Court

My amicus brief was accepted and is now part of the record. The court has yet to decide if it will hear the case, which could be weeks – months way.

“Arizona Supreme Court
Civil Petition for Review – Appeal
CV-21-0049-PR TIM TARTER et al v DOUGLAS BENDT et al

“12. 25-Jun-2021 Amicus Curiae Staropoli filed an ‘Amicus Curiae Brief of George K. Staropoli in Support of Appellants’ on June 17, 2021 and a ‘Motion to Appear Amicus Curiae Brief of George K. Staropoli in Support of Appellants’ on June 24, 2021. After consideration, [163736]

IT IS ORDERED the ‘Motion to Appear Amicus Curiae Brief of George K. Staropoli in Support of Appellants’ is granted. The brief shall be filed as of June 17, 2021. Tracie K. Lindeman”

* * * *

I stated my value, in part, as:

“The issues addressed in this case are of general importance and statewide but also national concern, as the impact on community associations is certainly substantial and states look to other states for guidance in this developing area of law. The policy makers have failed to understand that the HOA CC&Rs have crossed over the line between purely property restrictions to establishing unregulated and authoritarian private governments.

“Professor Evan McKenzie in his landmark 1994 book (Privatopia: Homeowners Associations and the Rise of Residential Private Government (1994)) acknowledged the fact that ‘HOAs currently engage in many activities that would be prohibited if they were viewed by the courts as the equivalent of local governments.’”

The continuing saga of Bendt and public speech in HOAs

Earlier I had reported on Arizona homeowner Bendt who dared speak out and criticize her HOA president and BOD using social media, emails, and pamphlets among other statements. See HOA limited-purpose public directors and officers  and Limited purpose public HOA board; slander; AZ HB 2052. What courage and determination to fight against her HOA president and 2 board members who are attorneys.

 With all respect and encouragement I have supported her fight to defend  herself from accusations of defamation. In her appeal, which she lost, the HOA admitted that the president was a limited-purpose public figure with the acceptance that social media and that the HOA is a public forum;  with protected free speech in regard to matters of members’ concern and HOA governance issues. Bendt protested an election and alleged improper and wrongful acts by the president. The result was  a well calculated, in my view, personal defamation attack on Bendt to avoid the larger, broader aspects that protect members’ criticisms, with certain restraints.

Her defense has now moved on to the AZ Supreme Court, waiting for acceptance of her petition. Roughly less than 10% of supreme court petitions for review are accepted. Good luck to Bendt!  If accepted, then her case is scheduled for oral arguments and a decision in a few months.

 Stay tuned to this case of widespread importance to homeowner rights.

 BTW, homeowner protections contained in AZ HB 2052 are lost as the bill died in Rules committee, which is controlled by the leaders of the majority party.

 For the record, I am not a lawyer nor am I giving legal opinion or advice.