Dubious Legalized Communism in America = Dirty Rotten Home Owner Associations

    Incredibly, after the Cold War, the Cuban Missile Crisis, the McCarthy Era and the fall of the Iron Curtain, we find a Communist state in most new housing developments under the guise of HOA(Home Owners Association). As surprising as it may be to new home owners in these housing developments, they have been inducted into a dictatorial arrangement. Let's look up the definition of "Communism" as stated in Wikipedia is: "1. a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state. 2. (often initial capital letter) a system of social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party." In my mind, this is exactly the same definition I would give to a Home Owners Association. There are many reasons to follow which will collaborate my thought process.

  Before showing any examples of HOA abuses, let's examine the benefits of a HOA. The most significant
is the proven track record homeowners associations have in maintaining (and often enhancing) property values. Developments with homeowners associations better protect property values because the associations provide some critical benefits to residents that they normally would not be able to obtain on their own. The association provides greater certainty that the community will remain physically attractive over time by imposing, and privately enforcing through fines and assessments, rules on architecture, landscaping, accessory buildings, fences, signs, and related matters. Associations often provide recreational amenities for residents – such as tennis courts, swimming pools, and “community centers” – that many residents would not be able to afford on their own. Associations provide a variety of services to residents, including maintaining common areas and managing the development’s recreational facilities. Finally, many homeowners associations offer residents a heightened sense of personal safety and security because the development is a “gated” community that restricts access to community residents and their guests and invitees (such as repair or delivery services). 

   Ideally, this would seem to be a great bargain because the home owner could live in a picture perfect world of leisure and safety. Surely, giving away some rights to live in paradise is a small price. Unfortunately, in America, we pride ourselves on our individuality. We all do not choose to be robots or slaves as was the case in the former USSR. Like the former Soviet state, do we trust the administration in a communal living arrangement?  Remember the best laid plans always seem to have a glitch or two. Now, let's examine some of those glitches.

    Here are some excerpts taken from the Internet : 

 "We Can't Wait to Get Our Hands on Your Money -- Or Even Your Home."
A gardening violation. That's what landed Jeffrey DeMarco in hot water with his Rancho Santa Fe, Calif., homeowners association a few years ago: He planted too many roses on his four-acre property. Peeved, the association fined him monthly and sat back as the bills mounted. Then it placed a lien on his property and threatened to foreclose, according to DeMarco.

He took the board to court, but lost on the grounds that he had violated the association's architectural design rules. (In addition to planting roses, he also had regraded the site.) In the end, he got stuck with the association's $70,000 legal bill and lost his home to the bank. "Mr. DeMarco came into the community and wanted to step outside the rules," says Walt Ekard, the association manager. "That's a detriment to everyone."  - Quoted from: http://loan.yahoo.com/m/primer13.html

  " Cunningham v. Fountain Valley Chateau Blanc Homeowner's Assoc., 1998 WL 761483 (Cal.App.10/30/98).

Plaintiff was a 63 year old retiree with Hodgkin's disease. He acquired a home in the planned unit development in question through an installment land contract arrangement with the Veteran's Administration. The Association's CC&R's included a provision requiring "owners" to "maintain the interiors of their residential units and garages, including the interior wall, ceilings, floors and permanent fixtures and appurtenances in a clean, sanitary and attractive condition." These provisions also gave the Association the right to inspect the interior of the homes to insure compliance.

The triggering event that led to all the ruckus here was a complaint by roofers hired by the Association that they could not maneuver their equipment in the area of Plaintiff's yard because of all the "debris" accumulated there. This, together with complaints from neighbors of content unspecified by the court, led the Association to initiate an inquiry, backed by threat of litigation, which involved a series of inspections of Plaintiff's premises, followed by a series of demands that Plaintiff clean up both the inside and the outside of his premises.

An inspection by the local public fire department was also conducted, and no fire hazard or other legal violation was found.

Nevertheless, the Association pushed ahead with its claims, and the court with gleeful indignation, reports the contents of the Association's positions regarding Plaintiff's residence:

" the association's attorneys wrote a lengthy letter to Cunningham detailing the inadequacies of Cunningham's housekeeping and demanding he undertake a number of actions concerning the interior of his home. He was told to: Clear his bed of all paper and books. Remove paper, cardboard boxes and books from the floor area around his bed and dresser. Remove all boxes and papers not currently in use in the living room and dining room because they increased the risk of fire. Clear all objects, including cardboard boxes, from his interior stairs and stairwells to allow passage. Not use his downstairs bathroom for storage. Maintain a functioning electrical light in his downstairs bathroom."

On top of these demands, the letter contained this statement: "The Association suggests that all outdated clothing that has not been worn in the last five years be removed and/or donated to the Salvation Army or similar organization. This would allow the upstairs bathroom to be used for what [sic ] designed for. Any other remaining clothes could be stored in a walkin closet." The letter further told Cunningham that "[b]ooks that are currently in book shelves, and which are considered standard reading material, can remain in place." It ended by reminding him that the association's attorney fees had reached over $34,000 and were continuing."

When the Association eventually initiated litigation against Plaintiff and the Veteran's Administration to enforce its demands, Plaintiff counterclaimed for damages. The suit against Plaintiff ultimately was settled when Plaintiff agreed not to store gasoline or kerosene on the premises and to provide a means of passage through his garage. The complaint against the Veteran's Administration proceeded to trial, and the jury found for the Veteran's Administration. Plaintiff's counterclaim was bifurcated as to liability and damages. When the jury found for Plaintiff on the issue of liability, the trial court, with sketchy grounds, granted a new trial, and announced that he would continue to grant a new trial if the jury again found the Association liable.

On appeal: held: Reversed. The appeals court viewed the new trial ruling as effectively a ruling for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, which subject to broader review, and concluded that there was adequate basis for a jury finding in this case. The opinion says nothing about the grounds for the Plaintiff's complaint whether it sounded in tort or contract, abuse of process, or some other notion. A press release prepared by Plaintiff's attorney suggested that the case involved Constitutional violations, but there is no hint of that in the appeals court opinion, and indeed a finding of Constitutional violations would be an extraordinary ruling in a case like this, involving private conduct.

Nevertheless, a few more paragraphs from the richly worded opinion of the appeals court seem appropriate:

"[T]he CC & R's cannot reasonably be read to allow an association to dictate the amount of clutter in which a person chooses to live; one man's old piece of junk is another man's objet d' art. The association's rather highhanded attempt to micromanage Cunningham's personal housekeeping telling him how he could and could not use the interior rooms of his own house clearly crossed the line and was beyond the purview of any legitimate interest it had in preventing undesirable external effects or maintaining property values.

Particularly galling to us and clearly to the jury as well was the presumptuous attempt to lecture Cunningham about getting rid of his old clothes, the way he kept his own bedroom, and the kind of "reading material" he could have. [FN9] To obtain some perspective here, we have the spectacle of a homeowner's association telling a senior citizen suffering from Hodgkin's Disease that, in effect, he could not read in his own bed! [FN10] When Cunningham bought his unit, we seriously doubt that he contemplated the association would ever tell him to clean up his own bedroom like some parent nagging an errant teenager." - Quoted from http://www.ccfj.net/HOAcourtpower.html

   " In 2007, a Texas couple fell behind in their HOA dues. The husband had suffered traumatic brain injury at his railroad job; the wife had a skin condition causing swelling and open sores on her body. With bills piling up in every corner, HOA dues lost priority in the couple’s life. But instead of taking the usual route by filing a lien on the property, meaning that Dan and Elaine Lambert would not be able to sell their home until they paid their dues, their HOA evicted them and seized their home. Reporter Brian Collister of WOAI wrote:

    Instead of filing a lien and leaving it at that, the Heritage Hills HOA took the unusual step of foreclosing and selling the house. The Lambert home sold at a public auction on the steps of the Bexar County Courthouse. The house valued at $156,000 sold for only $2,200.

Sadly, as more people fall on hard times and fail to pay their association dues, this HOA tactic of seizing homes and selling them as foreclosures has increased across the country."  - Quoted from http://blog.sfgate.com/ontheblock/2010/09/02/what-happens-when-your-hoa-becomes-hostile/

    Through these examples, it becomes very apparent that giving away one's rights to a HOA can be dangerous to your financial health and well being. Lest we forget that we are a nation built on the idea of tolerance for others. HOA's may be equated to "nanny" states. HOA's seem to be a noble idea but whenever certain people get a taste of authority over others they may tend to overextend themselves to a degree. So it stands, the certain HOA's can get intoxicated with control over their fellow residents.

  In conclusion, over the past forty years property ownership has changed - and not altogether for the better.  In the old days a man's home was considered his castle and came with the inherent rights of ownership.  The owner had the freedom to live in relative peace and tranquility.  But those days have long passed.  In today's world people live in "cells" where all the decisions about their house and a portion of their private lives is made by others.  The owners in many homeowner associations can not exercise their right to choose the plants in the yard,  the color on the house or the type of window treatments.  Such things as garden hoses, mulch and plants must be "pre-approved".  Some people think it is OK to live like that, others choose not to.