U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Idaho > Boise area
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 02-03-2013, 02:46 PM
 
Location: Denver, CO
9,184 posts, read 5,462,776 times
Reputation: 4038

Advertisements

Roughly 62 million people live in HOAs somewhere in the country. There are at least SIXTY homeowner associations in Idaho--I saw a website listing 60 from CDA to Boise to Twin Falls.

IC says don't buy into them. That is certainly a choice. But what does he tell the people that live in them? Sell? Why, if no one should buy into them?

In addition, almost all future sub-divisions will be in HOA communities because of the 1977 Clean Water Act that requires water retention areas for new structures. A developer can build a water retention area for a single home, but it is more economical to build one for a whole community thereby creating "common areas" that result in some sort of Homeowners Association.

Please read Wikipedia on HOAs for the history (dates back to the middle of the 19th century), the benefits, the potential negatives, and even some alternative methods of forming associations.

Lawsuits are EXPENSIVE and frequently do not work out like either side thinks they will. Idaho has no HOA law, so lawsuits are the ONLY way to establish anything in the state. This frequently works out to the disadvantage of individual IDAHOANS because courts most often will choose to use the express language of the contractual contract to establish enforcement.

It is in the best interest of IDAHO to have some established legislation governing HOA's. IC is perfectly correct in assuming that in IDAHO you could have an over-reaching board with no statutory protection.

From an IDAHO attorney who RECOMMENDS legislation to clarify common law rulings in the state. Read the entire article for a ruling that ultimately did not favor the homeowner, and which I believe was an error in equity by the Idaho appelatte court. This is why a CAI attorney recommends legislation in order to limit LITIGATION.

Quote:
Idaho could spell out much more clearly some general principles of fair play and transparency in all common interest property ownership regimes. For instance, most associations are currently non-profit corporations subject to the Idaho Nonprofit Corporation Act. This is a start, however, the Act does not anticipate title-based assessments, requires consent for admission, and also allows a member to voluntarily leave the corporation. It is simply inapplicable in many ways to ownership-based membership. Solely clarifying situations when the Nonprofit Corporation Act does not apply to an HOA or condo association would be a worthwhile effort.
http://www.vf-law.com/articles/hot-b...hip-regulation


Last edited by Wardendresden; 02-03-2013 at 03:27 PM..

 
Old 02-04-2013, 08:49 AM
 
2,818 posts, read 3,337,518 times
Reputation: 3015
wardendresden HOA boards and vendors overreach in EVERY state.
In states with statutes regarding HOAs, the statutes are usually heavily slanted to benefit the HOA industry trade groups - after all that is who lobbies for such laws. There is usually no penalty for overreaching. The HOA attorneys face no penalty for their conduct and they get paid from the HOA's coffers. The board members usually face no personal liability and they are more than happy to spend other people's money to bolster egos.

Having a statute does not prevent litigation - and in fact will often increase the frequency and likelihood of litigation. The industry will promote attorney fee shifting statutes, collection provisions, and an "all-powerful" HOA corporation - which turns HOA-burdened property into free-for-all vendor feeding grounds. The firm you reference claims to represent "communities" - a marketing gimmick. This is marketing code for the HOA corporation since a "community" is a non-entity incapable of being a party to any litigation. The HOA corporation is not a "community" and does not represent anything other than the interest of those individuals controlling its board. In Idaho's case there already are statutes - the CAI members would simply like to get rid of the provisions that offer a defense or affirmative rights to homeowners.

CAI attorneys are not interested in limiting litigation at all. What they are seeking to do is to eliminate any rights or remedies for the homeowners. You'll note above that the CAI attorney is concerned with eliminating any argument about whether your house should be security for the HOA corporation's debt (recognizing "title-based assessments"), eliminating the possibility that you could refuse membership (concerns that the non-profit corporation act "requires consent for admission" and permits members to "voluntarily leave the corporation"). This is why CAI attorneys don't like the existing statutory structure in Idaho. Note that this CAI law firm wants to "clarify" when the Nonprofit Corporation Act doesn't apply to HOA corporations. Given the specific "concerns" raised, it is apparent they want to "clarify" that the non-profit corporation act does not apply to the extent that it would assist the homeowner. In short they will lobby for legislation that eliminates any remedy or defense that a homeowner might have.

One scheme employed by CAI law firms and management companies is to entangle assessments with junk fees and the attorney fees that the HOA attorney chooses to rack up. They then threaten the non-client homeowner with the loss of his/her home in order to extract all the junk fees and attorney fees to benefit the vendors, not the HOA corporation and certainly not the homeowners. Furtherance of this scheme is the reason that CAI has gone so far as to adopt "Public Policies" opposing application of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act to HOAs. CAI members have engaged in this unscrupulous entanglement practice in every state. In states where their practices have been outlawed, they seek to amend/revise or "clarify" the law to provide exemptions for the industry folks to ply their unscrupulous business practices. By this entanglement mechanism, CAI attorneys and management companies will prey on the homeowners that are involuntary members of the HOA.

Wardendresden you quite obviously and fallibly "rely" upon the HOA-industry propaganda as the basis for your propositions. CAI isn't interested in eliminating litigation - they only seek to eliminate any defenses that a homeowner would otherwise have to the predatory business practices of CAI members. Litigation will continue with or without any statutes because CAI trade group members profit from disputes between homeowners and the HOA corporation. Indeed, CAI trade group members actively work to cultivate such disputes.

OP: Consider that if you do not purchase HOA-burdened property then you can happily go about your daily life not ever having had to familiarize yourself with this industry and its members or the terminology. You can avoid intrusive board members who will seek to control and dictate to you how you should use and enjoy your property and how you should lead your life. Buy HOA-burdened property and you will soon be dealing with the denizens of the industry and learning all about the schemes employed by this trade group as it operates through threatening homeowners with the loss of homes, rendering entire subdivisions unmarketable as a result of litigation, and that all those claims about "HOAs preserving value" meant "for the HOA attorneys and management companies".

Last edited by IC_deLight; 02-04-2013 at 09:15 AM..
 
Old 02-04-2013, 10:44 AM
 
Location: Denver, CO
9,184 posts, read 5,462,776 times
Reputation: 4038
Default Failure to respond

Quote:
Originally Posted by IC_deLight View Post
wardendresden HOA boards and vendors overreach in EVERY state.
In states with statutes regarding HOAs, the statutes are usually heavily slanted to benefit the HOA industry trade groups - after all that is who lobbies for such laws. There is usually no penalty for overreaching. The HOA attorneys face no penalty for their conduct and they get paid from the HOA's coffers. The board members usually face no personal liability and they are more than happy to spend other people's money to bolster egos.

Having a statute does not prevent litigation - and in fact will often increase the frequency and likelihood of litigation. The industry will promote attorney fee shifting statutes, collection provisions, and an "all-powerful" HOA corporation - which turns HOA-burdened property into free-for-all vendor feeding grounds. The firm you reference claims to represent "communities" - a marketing gimmick. This is marketing code for the HOA corporation since a "community" is a non-entity incapable of being a party to any litigation. The HOA corporation is not a "community" and does not represent anything other than the interest of those individuals controlling its board. In Idaho's case there already are statutes - the CAI members would simply like to get rid of the provisions that offer a defense or affirmative rights to homeowners.

CAI attorneys are not interested in limiting litigation at all. What they are seeking to do is to eliminate any rights or remedies for the homeowners. You'll note above that the CAI attorney is concerned with eliminating any argument about whether your house should be security for the HOA corporation's debt (recognizing "title-based assessments"), eliminating the possibility that you could refuse membership (concerns that the non-profit corporation act "requires consent for admission" and permits members to "voluntarily leave the corporation"). This is why CAI attorneys don't like the existing statutory structure in Idaho. Note that this CAI law firm wants to "clarify" when the Nonprofit Corporation Act doesn't apply to HOA corporations. Given the specific "concerns" raised, it is apparent they want to "clarify" that the non-profit corporation act does not apply to the extent that it would assist the homeowner. In short they will lobby for legislation that eliminates any remedy or defense that a homeowner might have.

One scheme employed by CAI law firms and management companies is to entangle assessments with junk fees and the attorney fees that the HOA attorney chooses to rack up. They then threaten the non-client homeowner with the loss of his/her home in order to extract all the junk fees and attorney fees to benefit the vendors, not the HOA corporation and certainly not the homeowners. Furtherance of this scheme is the reason that CAI has gone so far as to adopt "Public Policies" opposing application of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act to HOAs. CAI members have engaged in this unscrupulous entanglement practice in every state. In states where their practices have been outlawed, they seek to amend/revise or "clarify" the law to provide exemptions for the industry folks to ply their unscrupulous business practices. By this entanglement mechanism, CAI attorneys and management companies will prey on the homeowners that are involuntary members of the HOA.

Wardendresden you quite obviously and fallibly "rely" upon the HOA-industry propaganda as the basis for your propositions. CAI isn't interested in eliminating litigation - they only seek to eliminate any defenses that a homeowner would otherwise have to the predatory business practices of CAI members. Litigation will continue with or without any statutes because CAI trade group members profit from disputes between homeowners and the HOA corporation. Indeed, CAI trade group members actively work to cultivate such disputes.

OP: Consider that if you do not purchase HOA-burdened property then you can happily go about your daily life not ever having had to familiarize yourself with this industry and its members or the terminology. You can avoid intrusive board members who will seek to control and dictate to you how you should use and enjoy your property and how you should lead your life. Buy HOA-burdened property and you will soon be dealing with the denizens of the industry and learning all about the schemes employed by this trade group as it operates through threatening homeowners with the loss of homes, rendering entire subdivisions unmarketable as a result of litigation, and that all those claims about "HOAs preserving value" meant "for the HOA attorneys and management companies".

You are failing to respond to my previous two posts so I must have struck a nerve. You wont tell us the name of your CAI attorney and you will not provide sound reasonable advice to 62 million Americans living in HOA's and what to do about the several hundred more being proliferated each year. You also don't tell us how you were FORCED into buying into an HOA without knowledge of the HOA. I will continue to post the above until you fully reveal lying about your attorney, and how you were either duped or proved yourself personally incompetent when purchasing into an HOA.

So my advice IS reasonable. Learn how to live in an HOA and protect yourself. Or if you, don't do not buy into one.

In later posts I will provide laws from several states that illustrated protections for homeowners from HOA abuse. And certainly trade groups attempt to mitigate the effect of laws on their business. That's why they FIGHT legislation controlling them.

And I do have an interest in what Idaho does since my wife and I are about fifteen months away from making the state our home. What is your interest in Idaho? You have none. You are an HOA hater and go from thread to thread in every single state posting your diatribe with nothing constructive to offer anyone living in one.

It is far easier to be comfortable with an opinion than to be uncomfortable with thinking.
 
Old 02-04-2013, 10:57 AM
 
Location: Denver, CO
9,184 posts, read 5,462,776 times
Reputation: 4038
Default The need for HOA legislation

This is a statutory proposal by an attorney in Texas to provide a bill of rights for homeowners. His introduction lists the benefits of membership in an HOA and then goes on to point out abuses and how a bill of rights could protect homeowners.

As an "insider" as IC likes to call me even though I neither live in or have a financial interest in how any HOA operates anywhere--including his where he is attempting to collect money--- I fully support this bill and suggest it should become a part of every state's legislation:

Quote:
]Recent examples across the nation, described below, illustrate what many homeowner advocates perceive as the prelude to even greater conflict, absent legislative reform. Some of these cases have reached the national press, including television reports on 20/20 ABC News, [9] and articles in the New York Times, [10] Christian Science Monitor, [11] and People Magazine.[12] Many more cases can be found on Internet sites where homeowner advocates collect reports. [13] A radio show, [14] blogs, [15] newsletters, [16] and homeowner discussion groups [17] elaborate many homeowner frustrations. [18] Although details of the disputes between homeowners and their associations may vary, they frequently have a profound impact on homeowners.

Homeowners' Association Bill - Introduction
 
Old 02-04-2013, 11:11 AM
 
Location: Denver, CO
9,184 posts, read 5,462,776 times
Reputation: 4038
Default Florida law that would be good in Idaho

IC, please explain to Idahoans why the following law is (1) part of a trade group association effort to harm homeowners, and (2) would be of no benefit to homeowners in any state.

Quote:
(c) The bylaws shall provide for giving notice to parcel owners and members of all board meetings and, if they do not do so, shall be deemed to provide the following:
1. Notices of all board meetings must be posted in a conspicuous place in the community at least 48 hours in advance of a meeting, except in an emergency. In the alternative, if notice is not posted in a conspicuous place in the community, notice of each board meeting must be mailed or delivered to each member at least 7 days before the meeting, except in an emergency. Notwithstanding this general notice requirement, for communities with more than 100 members, the bylaws may provide for a reasonable alternative to posting or mailing of notice for each board meeting, including publication of notice, provision of a schedule of board meetings, or the conspicuous posting and repeated broadcasting of the notice on a closed-circuit cable television system serving the homeowners’ association. However, if broadcast notice is used in lieu of a notice posted physically in the community, the notice must be broadcast at least four times every broadcast hour of each day that a posted notice is otherwise required. When broadcast notice is provided, the notice and agenda must be broadcast in a manner and for a sufficient continuous length of time so as to allow an average reader to observe the notice and read and comprehend the entire content of the notice and the agenda. The bylaws or amended bylaws may provide for giving notice by electronic transmission in a manner authorized by law for meetings of the board of directors, committee meetings requiring notice under this section, and annual and special meetings of the members; however, a member must consent in writing to receiving notice by electronic transmission.
Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine

Idahoans, Florida law is some of the best in the nation given that they have many retirees that live in such communities.
 
Old 02-04-2013, 11:22 AM
 
Location: Denver, CO
9,184 posts, read 5,462,776 times
Reputation: 4038
Default AZ laws protecting HOA homeowners

IC, please explain to Idahoans why the following Arizona legislation is part of the CAI trade group attempt to limit HOA homeowner rights, and why this legislation would negatively impact Idahoan HOA members:

Quote:
33-1803. Penalties; notice to member of violation
A. Unless limitations in the community documents would result in a lower limit for the assessment, the association shall not impose a regular assessment that is more than twenty per cent greater than the immediately preceding fiscal year's assessment without the approval of the majority of the members of the association. Unless reserved to the members of the association, the board of directors may impose reasonable charges for the late payment of assessments. A payment by a member is deemed late if it is unpaid fifteen or more days after its due date, unless the community documents provide for a longer period. Charges for the late payment of assessments are limited to the greater of fifteen dollars or ten per cent of the amount of the unpaid assessment. Any monies paid by the member for an unpaid assessment shall be applied first to the principal amount unpaid and then to the interest accrued.
B. After notice and an opportunity to be heard, the board of directors may impose reasonable monetary penalties on members for violations of the declaration, bylaws and rules of the association.

Format Document
 
Old 02-04-2013, 11:48 AM
 
Location: Denver, CO
9,184 posts, read 5,462,776 times
Reputation: 4038
Default California law protecting HOA homeowenrs

IC, please explain to Idahoans why the following California legislation is CAI instituted and would not be a valuable asset to protect HOA homeowners in Idaho.


Quote:
1363.830. A fair, reasonable, and expeditious dispute resolution
procedure shall at a minimum satisfy all of the following
requirements:
(a) The procedure may be invoked by either party to the dispute. A
request invoking the procedure shall be in writing.
(b) The procedure shall provide for prompt deadlines. The
procedure shall state the maximum time for the association to act on
a request invoking the procedure.
(c) If the procedure is invoked by a member, the association shall
participate in the procedure.
(d) If the procedure is invoked by the association, the member may
elect not to participate in the procedure. If the member
participates but the dispute is resolved other than by agreement of
the member, the member shall have a right of appeal to the
association's board of directors.
(e) A resolution of a dispute pursuant to the procedure, that is
not in conflict with the law or the governing documents, binds the
association and is judicially enforceable. An agreement reached
pursuant to the procedure, that is not in conflict with the law or
the governing documents, binds the parties and is judicially
enforceable.
(f) The procedure shall provide a means by which the member and
the association may explain their positions.
(g) A member of the association shall not be charged a fee to
participate in the process.

CA Codes (civ:1363.810-1363.850)
 
Old 02-04-2013, 12:16 PM
 
Location: Denver, CO
9,184 posts, read 5,462,776 times
Reputation: 4038
Default Idahoans and the need for HOA legislation

Idahoans, you have had the opportunity to view just a few samples of legislation in other states that protect HOA homeowners from abuse by faulty HOA boards.

IC suggests that if you pass legislation it will be like everywhere else, controlled by trade groups and not in your best interest. I will be as interested in you as to how he feels none of the legislation listed in the previous posts would not benefit Idahoans.

And since Idaho has no HOA legislation, the courts have utilized contractural law to settle disputes and those have generally been unfavorable to folks living in HOAs.

IC has no reasonable advice for those living in HOAs. He has proven that he is incapable of handling his own personal affairs by purchasing into an HOA apparently without reading CC&R documents and apparently without attending regular board meetings of his HOA to monitor what decisions they were making. He refuses to tell us what state he lives in so that people can review the laws in his state to see what protections are available to him.

He refuses to tell us who his attorney is so that all of us will know that it is a trade group attorney who has most likely provided legal services to homeowners associations as well as homeowners (cause that's what attorneys do--they have a business interest in representation of their clients).

He refuses to provide us with his occupation so that we can make an assessment of his background to see if he has the experience to make blanket statements that "all" HOA boards are occupied by power hungry individuals.

He makes assumptions about my working for two years as an HOA managment company administrative assistant, and being an HOA board member--saying that therefore colors my views.

However, he does not know that I worked for 30 years for the insurance industry as an underwriter, ratemaker, and compliance officer, and LEFT the industry with a salary and bonus of over 100K in my final year (2001) because of the many abuses I saw taking place in the industry, and because senior executives kept pushing me to "sign off" as acceptable practices they wanted to institute which were illegal in some states. And I took a job as a medical records clerk making about $11.00 per hour.

Now if I were willing to take a job making roughly 20% of my previous salary because I had moral compunctions against acting illegally in the insurance industry, why would I suddently "switch" sides to "defend" HOAs in which I have no financial or personal interest since I neither nor longer live in one, nor work in the industry. I'm certainly not afraid to tell anyone about how insurance companies are trying to avoid following the laws of states. And I was an insider there with access to senior executives and CEOs.

IC is an angry man, no doubt because, due in part to his own lack of diligence in researching an HOA before he purchased into one, and by not monitoring the operation of his HOA board, he was treated unfairly or improperly. If that occurred, regardless of his lack of diligence, then the HOA board of his association should be brought to task.

But Idaho needs to institute legislation to control the "governmental" powers of HOAs to prevent and/or mitigate potential abuses. HOAs are continuing to multiply due to the 1977 Clean Water Act. More Idahoans are living in them than ever before, and the courts need legislative guidance to provide fair judicial governance between the rights of both HOAs and homeowners who live in them.
 
Old 02-04-2013, 03:18 PM
 
Location: Aloverton
6,564 posts, read 12,281,082 times
Reputation: 10009
Well, I don't know enough to take a stand on what the law should do about this. I do know that it sure helps me feel good about my commitment to just say 'no' to HOA-associated properties. Covenants I can deal with, especially when (as with my current neighborhood) everyone ritually ignores them, no one cares about enforcing them, and if any transplant from a HOA-happy region showed up and immediately tried stirring everyone up about the covenants, probably the main impact would be for everyone who's happy with the status quo to get together all right--and repeal or emasculate the existing covenants, outvoting the transplants. Assuming that's possible.
 
Old 02-04-2013, 03:35 PM
 
Location: San Diego California
6,797 posts, read 6,306,772 times
Reputation: 5175
Everything you need to know about HOA's can be summed up in two words..... Caveat emptor.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread



Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Idaho > Boise area
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:46 PM.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top