Donie Vanitzian
Arbitrator
December 27, 2004
Mr. Brian Hebert
Assistant Executive Secretary
cc: Mr. Nat Sterling
California Law Revision Commission
3200 5th Avenue
Sacramento, California 95817
Re: Memorandum 2005-7; Recording of Commission Meetings
Your December 8, 2004 and December 21, 2004 correspondence
Dear Mr. Hebert,
I appreciate your taking the time to tape the past CLRC meeting for me on tapes that I provided, and also, thank you for your response to my December 13, 2004 correspondence regarding the CLRC meeting tapes and proposed change in CLRC policy for public access. The letter stated that the CLRC has decided to now record its meetings digitally, with the public making appointments to listen to the recordings on the CLRC computers at either the Sacramento or Palo Alto offices. Please see my comments to this ridiculousness below.
My concerns then, are the same now. Just as the CLRC’s present documents are available to the public on its website for downloading, so too, can digital recordings be made available to the public as downloads.
As I explained to you, that there is no legitimate reason for the CLRC to disenfranchise any citizen that is unable to accommodate the CLRC’s self-imposed stringent viewing requirements. Forcing individuals to fly, drive, or take a train to Sacramento or Palo Alto merely to “listen” to recordings that can range anywhere from three minutes to thirty hours, is unreasonable and will have a chilling affect on public access. Or, perhaps that is what the CLRC intends, given the power your agency wields over people like me and how I will live in my residential deed-restricted albatross.
DIGITAL RECORDING FILES AND ITS CHILLING EFFECT ON THE PUBLIC OR THE CLRC?
What part of “public” does the CLRC not understand? When one attends a public meeting, one intends to be filmed and recorded.
The CLRC’s statement (pg 2) that “In short, the files will be of no use to most members of the public” blah, blah, blah. You, and your CLRC cohorts are hoping such meetings continue to fly under the radar and little if no attention is drawn to the damage you create with respect to injecting yourselves into the laws under the guise of legitimacy, and creating and recommending what the rest of us will live by. That is why you destroy the tapes right at or under 30 days isn’t it? If you truly were above board as a government agency working for the public there would be no need to destroy even one tape. It is however to your advantage, as you say, to make sure that those who influence you are not heard doing just that on tape.
No different than a homeowner association board of directors! I am stunned by comments like this:
Those who participate in Commission deliberations should expect that their comments might be noted and circulated more broadly. However, our deliberative process depends on a free flowing and frank exchange of views. If meeting participants are worried about an unguarded statement being used against them, they may be less forthcoming.
Too bad.
LEGAL REQUIREMENTS
Many statutes and case laws address issues you raise. For example, in the words of one court, Government Code section 54953.5 provides that “[a]ny person attending an open and public meeting of a legislative body of a local agency shall have the right to record the proceedings on a tape recorder. . . .” Section 54953.7 provides that legislative bodies of local agencies “may impose requirements upon themselves which allow greater access to their meetings than prescribed by the minimal standards set forth in this chapter.” Choice-in-Education League v. Los Angeles Unified School District, 17 Cal.App.4th 415 (1993). It says NOTHING about LESS ACCESS.
If I’m not mistaken, the California Law Revision Commission falls under the auspices of the “government.” Your web site is: www.clrc.ca.gov, emphasis on the “gov.” The employees are civil servants who serve at the pleasure of the public. On November 2, 2004, 7,489,682 Californians approved Proposition 59, otherwise known as the Public Records, Open Meetings Act. The California Constitution, Article 1, Section 3 is expressly amended in part to include, “The people have the right of access to information concerning the conduct of the people’s business, and, therefore, the meetings of public bodies and the writings of public officials and agencies shall be open to public scrutiny.” It goes on to say, that this shall be broadly construed if it furthers the people’s right of access, and narrowly construed if it limits the right of access. A statute, court rule, or other authority adopted after the effective date of this subdivision that limits the right of access shall be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest.
Mr. Hebert, the CLRC influences the laws that I live by. Therefore, as Joe Public, I want to hear every single utterance, every word from every CLRC meeting - and I don’t want another apology for “jumbled” meetings inclusive of “extraneous material” - I want the entire CLRC meeting - every committee - every speaker - in an audible and comprehensible form.
The CLRC bars what clearly should be permitted in making an accurate record of what takes place at such meetings. The action of this Commission is too arbitrary and capricious, too restrictive and unreasonable. Wollam v. City of Palm Springs, 59 Cal.2d 276 (1963); Alves v.Justice Court, 148 Cal.App.2d 419 (1957); 35 Cal.Jur.2d Municipal Corporations, § 228.
There should be no compromise in accurately reporting transactions of a public governing body, particularly in a democracy where truth is often said to be supreme. Governmental measures based upon police power should always be well defined and reasonably exercised. “If a shorthand record of such a meeting is more accurate than long hand notes, then the use of shorthand is to be approved.” Wrather-Alvarez Broadcasting, Inc. v. Hewicker, 147 Cal.App.2d 509 (1957). “If the making of a tape record is a still better method of memorializing the acts of a public body it should be encouraged.” Nevens v. City of Chino, 233 Cal.App.2d 775 (1965). That was 1965!
THE BROWN ACT
As one court stated, “Intent in enacting the Brown Act, Government Code section 54960(a) is clear: “The Legislature finds and declares that the public commissions, boards and councils and the other public agencies in this State exist to aid in the conduct of the people’s business. It is the intent of the law that their actions be taken openly and that their deliberations be conducted openly.” Los Angeles Times Communications LLC v. Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, 112 Cal.App.4th 1313, 1321 (2d Dist.2003), review denied (2004).
DISENFRANCHING THOSE OF US WHO NEED ACCESS THE MOST - BUT CAN LEAST AFFORD IT
Let me remind the CLRC that over 4 million Californians are unemployed - yet you remain on the government’s payroll - so it may seem easy for the Commission to place stipulations on others when it does not affect you. This forces individuals to fly, drive, or take a train to Sacramento or Palo Alto merely to “listen” to recordings that can range anywhere from three minutes to thirty hours, and it IS unreasonable. The CLRC is presumably not open on Saturdays and Sundays or evenings. Many of us may have to arrange and pay for babysitters, caretakers, time off from work and other responsibilities, let alone transportation.
For anyone who is immobile, physically challenged and seniors in particular, making arrangements to get to Sacramento or Palo Alto from anywhere in California, is no different than booking a flight to Mars. It is impossible.
Traveling to your offices to listen to tapes every month is unreasonable. It amounts to a penalty for wanting to assert one’s rights.
Your reasoning is flawed and it appears that the only people who will not be inconvenienced by your decisions, are the CLRC and its employees.
Even with the Davis-Stirling Act’s provision for Open Meetings, owners are still unable to enforce it. Why? Because the CLRC refuses to recommend penalties for recalcitrant boards. You will recommend arbitration, mediation, waiting time periods, stipulations on construction defects, architectural control issues, termite control, volunteer status definitions for titleholders, insurance specifications, and a host of other nonsense, but when it comes to penalties against boards, you refuse to touch the topic, instead dancing all around it. Now, those of us who want to see and hear first hand what the hell goes on down there and who and what is responsible for bastardizing these laws, the CLRC is shocked! Surprised! And then unilaterally pulls the plug in hopes it will prevent public access.
CONCLUSION
As a Systems Analyst, I’ll pass on taking apart your preposterous and embarrassingly flawed arguments on File Size and Format Incompatibility. Let it suffice to say, the CLRC was ill informed and I hope you didn’t pay for that advice with taxpayer funds. Even the British and Scottish Parliaments make their sessions available via Internet, some in real time, so too can the CLRC.
Sincerely,
D. Vanitzian
Monday, December 27, 2004
Thursday, December 23, 2004
Senior Condo Purchases, Part Three: A World Of Financial Exploitation
Senior Condo Purchases, Part Three: A World Of Financial Exploitation By Donie Vanitzian, BA, JD, Arbitrator Special to Senior Life
“We pay our money and keep our mouths shut. Never in a million years did we think we would be spending our golden years mired in paperwork and excessive fees, and under constant threat of being sued,” Corkey Eley, Leisure World, Laguna Woods.
Persons over the age of 50, who are looking for stable, uncomplicated living arrangements, make attractive targets for the financial schemes of condominium developers and operators. Even when seniors are determined to protect themselves and their purchases, they can easily become sidetracked from focusing on the property transaction itself. Events like social gatherings, parades and travel clubs, flanked by riding trails, tennis courts and hot tubs, throw the buyer off the scent of consequences linked to deed-restricted purchases.
Behind the façade of conforming buildings and well-maintained greenbelt beautification areas that may have originally helped qualify the developer for millions of dollars in state subsidies, homeowner associations are not the idyllic places they appear to be. Instead, they represent a restricted living situation that often turns predatory. The quality of life is dependent on how much power the board and management wish to assert over the owner, and how much money they can arbitrarily demand. The wrong mix can make life a living hell and create personal financial devastation.
These risks continue to be largely underestimated, undisclosed and unabated. While some seniors are happy to pay what they are told, shut the door and go shopping, others, like Carol Murata of Irvine, who want to know what is going on, complain of harassment and sabotage bymanagement companies and association representatives intended to, “silence and prevent us from seeing all the records. It just burns me up,” Carol fumes.
That frustration leads to desperation in communities where owners describe experiences with management as meting out terror. Noni Eley describes her golden years retirement in a condo as, “the biggest nightmare I’ve ever experienced where seniors have no rights.” Still, seniors are hesitant to report abuse. Hand over your money or move “Sadly, many investment advisors who are unfamiliar with the pitfalls of deedrestricted property include a condo purchase as part of the senior’s investment diversification planning,” explains Real Estate Broker and Personal Financial Planner, Thomas Foster. “Most senior condo purchases are solicited using the lure of a variety of activities and promises of a better quality of life. Little thought is given to one’s actual income versus costs controlled by an entity called the ‘association,’ or to the fact that owners must continue to pay for all association amenities whether they use them or not. Such outflows can include fees, assessments and other costs that can be arbitrarily increased at any time without limitation. When purchasing into an association or community environment, seniors requiring financial stability have no guarantees.”
Without meaningful laws protecting owners, many associations have become the last free bastion of no accountability while they methodically deplete seniors of their resources. There is no other type of home ownership where owners have the privilege of handing over their money whenever asked, and not having an “absolute” right to know where that money is going. The money taken belongs to those who can least afford to lose it, and are too frail or incapacitated to effectively protect themselves against victimization.
These days, there are seniors and then there are seniors
One octogenarian recalls when “being a senior meant you had to be over 65 years old and housing was affordable for fixed income seniors. But the qualifying age for many senior developments has been lowered to age 50, to attract wealthier baby boomer buyers. As a result, our costs have gone up.”
If the association has a “trust-fund-baby” board of directors, finances are the last thing on that board’s mind. The younger generation’s seemingly diminished concern for money may be due to the ease with which they can make or borrow money when needed. Numerous older residents, however, are not as fortunate, and many wind up moving from one community to another seeking a mix of demographics and affordability. Unfortunately, with each move comes an additional depletion of usually irreplaceable funds. Because these perils of deed-restricted living are not fully disclosed in condo sales brochures or during escrow, it is understandable that buyers, but seniors in particular, fail to comprehend that situations might get so bad as to force them to move overnight. They want to believe this will never happen to them or, if it does, they will be able to quickly sell and move. Not so. Owners are finding themselves in positions where they must suddenly empty the contents of their home and move. Seniors told me they “hope they die first.”
Elder abuse, or keep quiet and keep paying
Although owners personally bankroll the association, an association’s funding and spending philosophy can often change from board to board. Accountability is a problem. It easily becomes irrelevant whether money collected for a particular reason can be diverted for another purpose or not used at all. However, when you move, your monetary contributions stay in the association’s coffers.
The American Psychological Association (APA) warns that elder abuse includes just this kind of financial exploitation. The National Committee for Prevention of Elder Abuse (NCPEA) warns of unscrupulous professionals and businesspersons, or anyone posing as such. They may overcharge for services or products, use deceptive or unfair business practices, or “use their positions of trust or respect” to gain access or compliance. Those who are ill, frail, disabled or depressed are at greater risk of abuse. Because most seniors don’t want to make waves, intimidation and financial exploitation are achieved with little effort.
“When we question invoices we don’t owe, we’re told, ‘pay it and argue later.’” Dorothy, Riverside. For older seniors, there may not be a “later.” Many fail to realize they may not owe money, but pay the bill anyway.
“We ask for information regarding finances and accounting anomalies; the board stalls, ignores us and says ‘we’re looking into it,’ but we never get anywhere. It doesn’t matter if we write three or three hundred letters, we get no response.” Helen and Frank Schroeder, Torrance.
After stalling tactics run out, seniors are hit where it hurts the most, their wallets. Owners who pursued their statutory rights to inspect books and records reported that boards and management destroyed or fabricated documents and then lied to cover up their actions and mislead law enforcement. Retaliation against owners followed. Seniors who persist on enforcing their rights can be ostracized, labeled “troublemakers,” given the silent treatment, and ignored by management and boards. These are painful and unhealthy experiences. Seniors who are intentionally excluded or shut out by their peers, or those in control, lose friendship and the ability to exercise direction over their home, finances and living conditions.
When seniors become sitting ducks Some seniors do not realize the true value of their total assets and fail to adequately protect themselves. The APA and NCPEA recognize that many seniors are dependent on others for help. They warn of so-called “helpers” or those perceived to be “in charge” or “running the place.” With nothing more than status and trust, these individuals gain access to homes and assets where they can exercise significant influence over the older person. In fact, community environments encourage such “dependence.” Instantly in many cases, because of their position of trust, board directors and management vendors are given access to cash, checks, accounts and personal information about residents. The relationship becomes personal because these entities are on a first name basis with residents. Those most adept at perpetrating abuse and deceit are usually found in positions of trust, and they are also typically “very nice.”
Even when minimal protections exist, owners are unable to enforce them. One senior was injured late at night when he returned from work. He was brutally assaulted and battered by association directors in his own driveway. Bloody, he dialed 911 on his cell phone. His crime? He exercised his legal right to obtain copies of the association’s insurance policies. The board’s personally delivered pugilistic message: don’t ever send the agent or board a signed, return receipt for insurance policies again, you’re not getting them, so stop asking! The failure of seniors to effectively assert their rights results in the elevation of power, control and domination by boards and management, culminating in a sanctioned exploitation of those who are most defenseless. Collectively, this ruling elite disenfranchises those in the minority while constituting an overt and unlegislated force of domination.
Betrayal by peers All too often seniors sitting on governing boards are themselves incapable of conducting meaningful business or comprehending documents and commitments that will bind all owners forever. Still, they cling to the seat of power by getting elected to the board. This presents an opportunity for unscrupulous vendors and advisors to deviously control the association from the sidelines. One owner makes sure her husband is on the board, “playing CEO with the other nonviable, unemployed, and retired, ex-CEOs. It makes him feel good and gets him out of the house,” she says. The wife of an unsuccessful retired used boat salesman turned career board member, says, “He’s always wanted to be a CEO but never had the education.” Another senior admits her husband “is in the first stages of Alzheimer’s disease, but being on the board gives him something to do.” Unapologetically, she says, “He votes however the management company or directors tell him to vote.” Actions of directors like these are financially devastating to owners and can erode equity that can never be recovered.
In the process, a once revolutionary bastion of so-called “affordable” housing has degenerated to an embarrassing and shameful ruling class of boards, management, vendors and toothless legislation. That governance is sustained not by popular acceptance, but by the agency of terror over those who can least afford it. ~*~
“We pay our money and keep our mouths shut. Never in a million years did we think we would be spending our golden years mired in paperwork and excessive fees, and under constant threat of being sued,” Corkey Eley, Leisure World, Laguna Woods.
Persons over the age of 50, who are looking for stable, uncomplicated living arrangements, make attractive targets for the financial schemes of condominium developers and operators. Even when seniors are determined to protect themselves and their purchases, they can easily become sidetracked from focusing on the property transaction itself. Events like social gatherings, parades and travel clubs, flanked by riding trails, tennis courts and hot tubs, throw the buyer off the scent of consequences linked to deed-restricted purchases.
Behind the façade of conforming buildings and well-maintained greenbelt beautification areas that may have originally helped qualify the developer for millions of dollars in state subsidies, homeowner associations are not the idyllic places they appear to be. Instead, they represent a restricted living situation that often turns predatory. The quality of life is dependent on how much power the board and management wish to assert over the owner, and how much money they can arbitrarily demand. The wrong mix can make life a living hell and create personal financial devastation.
These risks continue to be largely underestimated, undisclosed and unabated. While some seniors are happy to pay what they are told, shut the door and go shopping, others, like Carol Murata of Irvine, who want to know what is going on, complain of harassment and sabotage bymanagement companies and association representatives intended to, “silence and prevent us from seeing all the records. It just burns me up,” Carol fumes.
That frustration leads to desperation in communities where owners describe experiences with management as meting out terror. Noni Eley describes her golden years retirement in a condo as, “the biggest nightmare I’ve ever experienced where seniors have no rights.” Still, seniors are hesitant to report abuse. Hand over your money or move “Sadly, many investment advisors who are unfamiliar with the pitfalls of deedrestricted property include a condo purchase as part of the senior’s investment diversification planning,” explains Real Estate Broker and Personal Financial Planner, Thomas Foster. “Most senior condo purchases are solicited using the lure of a variety of activities and promises of a better quality of life. Little thought is given to one’s actual income versus costs controlled by an entity called the ‘association,’ or to the fact that owners must continue to pay for all association amenities whether they use them or not. Such outflows can include fees, assessments and other costs that can be arbitrarily increased at any time without limitation. When purchasing into an association or community environment, seniors requiring financial stability have no guarantees.”
Without meaningful laws protecting owners, many associations have become the last free bastion of no accountability while they methodically deplete seniors of their resources. There is no other type of home ownership where owners have the privilege of handing over their money whenever asked, and not having an “absolute” right to know where that money is going. The money taken belongs to those who can least afford to lose it, and are too frail or incapacitated to effectively protect themselves against victimization.
These days, there are seniors and then there are seniors
One octogenarian recalls when “being a senior meant you had to be over 65 years old and housing was affordable for fixed income seniors. But the qualifying age for many senior developments has been lowered to age 50, to attract wealthier baby boomer buyers. As a result, our costs have gone up.”
If the association has a “trust-fund-baby” board of directors, finances are the last thing on that board’s mind. The younger generation’s seemingly diminished concern for money may be due to the ease with which they can make or borrow money when needed. Numerous older residents, however, are not as fortunate, and many wind up moving from one community to another seeking a mix of demographics and affordability. Unfortunately, with each move comes an additional depletion of usually irreplaceable funds. Because these perils of deed-restricted living are not fully disclosed in condo sales brochures or during escrow, it is understandable that buyers, but seniors in particular, fail to comprehend that situations might get so bad as to force them to move overnight. They want to believe this will never happen to them or, if it does, they will be able to quickly sell and move. Not so. Owners are finding themselves in positions where they must suddenly empty the contents of their home and move. Seniors told me they “hope they die first.”
Elder abuse, or keep quiet and keep paying
Although owners personally bankroll the association, an association’s funding and spending philosophy can often change from board to board. Accountability is a problem. It easily becomes irrelevant whether money collected for a particular reason can be diverted for another purpose or not used at all. However, when you move, your monetary contributions stay in the association’s coffers.
The American Psychological Association (APA) warns that elder abuse includes just this kind of financial exploitation. The National Committee for Prevention of Elder Abuse (NCPEA) warns of unscrupulous professionals and businesspersons, or anyone posing as such. They may overcharge for services or products, use deceptive or unfair business practices, or “use their positions of trust or respect” to gain access or compliance. Those who are ill, frail, disabled or depressed are at greater risk of abuse. Because most seniors don’t want to make waves, intimidation and financial exploitation are achieved with little effort.
“When we question invoices we don’t owe, we’re told, ‘pay it and argue later.’” Dorothy, Riverside. For older seniors, there may not be a “later.” Many fail to realize they may not owe money, but pay the bill anyway.
“We ask for information regarding finances and accounting anomalies; the board stalls, ignores us and says ‘we’re looking into it,’ but we never get anywhere. It doesn’t matter if we write three or three hundred letters, we get no response.” Helen and Frank Schroeder, Torrance.
After stalling tactics run out, seniors are hit where it hurts the most, their wallets. Owners who pursued their statutory rights to inspect books and records reported that boards and management destroyed or fabricated documents and then lied to cover up their actions and mislead law enforcement. Retaliation against owners followed. Seniors who persist on enforcing their rights can be ostracized, labeled “troublemakers,” given the silent treatment, and ignored by management and boards. These are painful and unhealthy experiences. Seniors who are intentionally excluded or shut out by their peers, or those in control, lose friendship and the ability to exercise direction over their home, finances and living conditions.
When seniors become sitting ducks Some seniors do not realize the true value of their total assets and fail to adequately protect themselves. The APA and NCPEA recognize that many seniors are dependent on others for help. They warn of so-called “helpers” or those perceived to be “in charge” or “running the place.” With nothing more than status and trust, these individuals gain access to homes and assets where they can exercise significant influence over the older person. In fact, community environments encourage such “dependence.” Instantly in many cases, because of their position of trust, board directors and management vendors are given access to cash, checks, accounts and personal information about residents. The relationship becomes personal because these entities are on a first name basis with residents. Those most adept at perpetrating abuse and deceit are usually found in positions of trust, and they are also typically “very nice.”
Even when minimal protections exist, owners are unable to enforce them. One senior was injured late at night when he returned from work. He was brutally assaulted and battered by association directors in his own driveway. Bloody, he dialed 911 on his cell phone. His crime? He exercised his legal right to obtain copies of the association’s insurance policies. The board’s personally delivered pugilistic message: don’t ever send the agent or board a signed, return receipt for insurance policies again, you’re not getting them, so stop asking! The failure of seniors to effectively assert their rights results in the elevation of power, control and domination by boards and management, culminating in a sanctioned exploitation of those who are most defenseless. Collectively, this ruling elite disenfranchises those in the minority while constituting an overt and unlegislated force of domination.
Betrayal by peers All too often seniors sitting on governing boards are themselves incapable of conducting meaningful business or comprehending documents and commitments that will bind all owners forever. Still, they cling to the seat of power by getting elected to the board. This presents an opportunity for unscrupulous vendors and advisors to deviously control the association from the sidelines. One owner makes sure her husband is on the board, “playing CEO with the other nonviable, unemployed, and retired, ex-CEOs. It makes him feel good and gets him out of the house,” she says. The wife of an unsuccessful retired used boat salesman turned career board member, says, “He’s always wanted to be a CEO but never had the education.” Another senior admits her husband “is in the first stages of Alzheimer’s disease, but being on the board gives him something to do.” Unapologetically, she says, “He votes however the management company or directors tell him to vote.” Actions of directors like these are financially devastating to owners and can erode equity that can never be recovered.
In the process, a once revolutionary bastion of so-called “affordable” housing has degenerated to an embarrassing and shameful ruling class of boards, management, vendors and toothless legislation. That governance is sustained not by popular acceptance, but by the agency of terror over those who can least afford it. ~*~
SENIOR CONDO PURCHASES, PART TWO: A World of Hidden Problems
SENIOR CONDO PURCHASES, PART TWO: A World of Hidden Problems
December, 2004
By Donie Vanitzian Copyright Donie Vanitzian
Los Angeles, California - "I had no idea what all those papers meant when I bought this condo. I've meager means and little energy for this homeowner association nonsense and I can't keep up with it. It just wears me out," David - Encino, California
There is more to buying a condo than agreeing to pay a monthly fee. On top of mortgage payments and regular maintenance fees, the speed with which special assessments are charged to owners exacts a ruthless reality, particularly on seniors who never expected to be hit with rapid motion bank withdrawals from their account and into the association's coffers. Without meaningful consumer protections and readily verifiable accountability of these items, the equity in your home is at risk.
Condo buyers must agree to all terms in piles of paperwork presented to them during escrow whether they like it or not, or they can't buy. Paperwork can be a foot thick, taking competent lawyers weeks to research, yet most buyers agree to terms without ever reading them, that is, if they are provided copies at all. Many buyers don't realize that everything they agree to, including monthly fees, can change overnight without their knowledge or consent, and the law permits it. These purchases are convoluted and buyers cannot afford to be intimidated.
For each master and sub-association where the property is located, buyers must:
1. Learn of any lawsuits.
2. Demand copies of covenants, conditions, and restrictions; articles of incorporation; bylaws; rules and regulations; association insurance policies; financial records, and board meeting minutes for several years.
3. Read and understand everything. If you have problems getting any information, or if documents look suspicious, don't buy.
A common misconception about homeowner associations is that they are a democracy. They aren't. Instead, this type of purchase makes a mockery of the concept of choice.
POWER OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
"Our budget is $80 million a year. The management company commandeers our board of directors' election procedure, which is a 'conflict of interest.' This violates our bylaws election process 'secrecy and integrity' rule. Elections should never be in the hands of a management company employed by the board." Alice, owner, Leisure World, Laguna Woods.
Election of a board of directors is an election for control of money, contracts, foreclosure, and titleholders. Make no mistake directors have political and social control of the association and run it as they see fit. Unfortunately, too many seniors will automatically reelect existing board members because they fail to understand this is a business not a popularity contest.
Power over meetings, motions and lives "If I ask a question the board doesn't like, they tell me, 'sit down you're out of order!'" fumes co-op owner Helen Schroeder of Torrance. "Boards treat seniors as if we are senile, dumb and not knowledgeable."
In addition to creative accounting methods, often boards will alter the way "notice" is delivered to owners by hiding it in announcements, bulletins, or newsletters. When monthly fees go up and you complain, a board's typical response is, "we put notice in the flyer we sent out, if you didn't get it or read it, that's your problem."
All motions and rules passed by the board, even if owners disagree, bind everyone. Challenging board actions means inevitably that owners must sue and pay for their own lawsuit. In homeowner associations, nothing is "free" and nearly every avenue an owner chooses to pursue requires money, time, attorney advice, or the filing of a lawsuit. Arbitration is no better. Much time is wasted on the process itself and because boards receive legal advice and retain lawyers, seniors need to hire an attorney.
---Problems arise because association funds or insurance policies pay board attorney fees, yet owners can't utilize that attorney or access invoices they pay for
---When a board sues an owner, that lawsuit becomes an association expense, meaning all owners pay for costs, but owners finance their own lawsuits Owners wanting to stop an existing lawsuit against the board's wishes . can't. All owners must continue to pay for it and the lawyers. If the association loses, owners may have to pay the judgment award and also risk paying attorney fees for the other side.
POWER TO DENY HEIRS
Real Estate Broker and Personal Financial Planner Thomas Foster warns seniors, "Be aware that even if you don't have a mortgage and don't owe taxes, boards have the power to lien and nonjudicially foreclose for money they allege is owed."
---Boards have the power to make arbitrary demands on individual owners, raise monthly fees, sell property, enter into contracts, fine, penalize, charge interest, lien, foreclose, and keep owners mired in debt they won't live long enough to pay off.
---If the owner doesn't pay, when they die, their estate will pay.
Such unrestrained actions can prevent or hold up a person's purchase or sale, increasing escrow costs and chances of litigation. An association can prevent the purchase or sale of your property, and some include an "option to buy" clause or "right of first refusal" in their governing documents. Others exercise rights to decide whether they "like" the prospective buyer or not, before allowing them to move intothe community. Some boards have prevented heirs from occupying the unit until they have been interviewed and approved by the board, and only after the board receives proof the heir has a right to inherit the unit. Deciding whether the association will exercise such options could take months. If none of these options sound fair or equitable, they don't have to be. Purchasers voluntarily buy into private communities and are free to contract regardless of the terms.
"I won't let my mother buy a condo, it's too risky," Foster cautions. "Owners are nothing more than cash dispensers for associations."
WARNING: THOSE "PAPERS" ARE "LEGAL DOCUMENTS"
Many owners do not know the difference between petitions, proxies or ballots, and this can be dangerous. Depending on the printed language, once signed you have voted and often cannot revoke your signature.
Unfortunately, seniors usually comply with board requests for their signed proxy. Not understanding the consequences of signing any of those documents without prior legal advice can be devastating.Your signature on any one of those "papers" could allow the association to do just about anything including amending its governing documents giving it more control over money, owner assets and quality of life. You may have unwittingly agreed to pay more or allow the board to charge higher assessments. Or, it can cause the assets of the association to be sold out from under the owners with the money going to third parties; elect a board of directors which has conflicting interests; allow the board to hire a management company without consent of owners; and a host of other actions that will seriously impact, if not destroy, the living environment. This can be done in numerous ways.
Owners refusing to cooperate, or give the board their votes and proxies, can be targeted, portrayed as non-team players, and easily retaliated against. Examples include doorbells ringing mysteriously in the middle of the night, phantom phone calls, sudden disappearance of pets, additional charges, veiled threats, disregarded letters and maintenance requests, all geared to inconvenience, silence, and frighten owners into compliance.
The American Psychological Association (APA) describes emotional or psychological abuse as ranging from name-calling or being given the "silent treatment," intimidating, insulting, and threatening the individual. By APA standards, isolating or preventing the owner from partaking in their regular activities or seeing their friends, either by force, threats or through manipulation, is also abuse. Since there are no statutory penalties for errant boards, democracy fails.
REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE PROBLEMS
While funding the association business and paying for repairs and maintenance of common property, each owner is also responsible for their own home's upkeep. This means instead of paying for only one roof (your roof), you may have to share the cost of paying for 100 or 1,000 roofs. You cannot pick your roof vendor, the board does. If the board and management keep the association mired in unnecessary or costly perpetual maintenance schemes, all owners must pay for those schemes, even if they disagree with the board's decision.
AMENITIES ARE LIABILITIES
Louise, owner in an age-restricted association, complains that the trust foundation at her leisure community, "is supposed to hold all our amenities in 'trust' for owners here, but they just sold one of our buildings without owner vote. That's against the law, but they know we can't afford to hire an attorney to stop them, so they do whatever they please. They tell us, 'when you pay your dues, you have no say on where they go. So, once it leaves your hands, we do what we want.'"
Many buyers do not realize that amenities are costly liabilities. Once all units in a complex are sold, the very amenities luring buyers to purchase, can be sold out from under them at any time, not unlike "corporate raiding" of assets. Brochures boasting fancy amenities not yet built, may never be built. Existing amenities may be in such poor condition that, soon after purchase, buyers are saddled with thousands of dollars in special assessments for insurance, maintenance, repair or replacement costs. Failure to pay can result in foreclosure. If the board sells common assets, there is no guarantee that proceeds will be shared amongst the owners who sunk their money into that association. The board decides what to do with the money.
SENIORS MUST HAVE A GUARANTEED GROWING INCOME
"I can't afford to stay, and I can't afford to move," cries a Santa Monica octogenarian, and Dennis Hlavaty of San Pedro, agrees, "I'd leave here in a New York minute if I could only afford it."
All the cash capital in the association's operating funds is generated from owners. Just because you can afford to move in does not mean you can afford to stay, or that you can afford to move out.
Prior to buying a deed-restricted property, most owners are not advised that they must have a steadily increasing income to keep their home and pay trumped up fees to close escrow or refinance. Owners who cannot afford to pay their association's demands for increased fees and instant assessments that can cost thousands of dollars per owner, cannot stay (one association specially assessed each owner $1 million). Whether $1 or $1 million, seniors who cannot pay, must sell and move. Those who cannot sell quickly enough may face foreclosure, or simply have to leave their homes behind.
NOTES
This article was published in the December 2004 edition of Southern California Senior Life. Click here for more information about the author.
December, 2004
By Donie Vanitzian Copyright Donie Vanitzian
Los Angeles, California - "I had no idea what all those papers meant when I bought this condo. I've meager means and little energy for this homeowner association nonsense and I can't keep up with it. It just wears me out," David - Encino, California
There is more to buying a condo than agreeing to pay a monthly fee. On top of mortgage payments and regular maintenance fees, the speed with which special assessments are charged to owners exacts a ruthless reality, particularly on seniors who never expected to be hit with rapid motion bank withdrawals from their account and into the association's coffers. Without meaningful consumer protections and readily verifiable accountability of these items, the equity in your home is at risk.
Condo buyers must agree to all terms in piles of paperwork presented to them during escrow whether they like it or not, or they can't buy. Paperwork can be a foot thick, taking competent lawyers weeks to research, yet most buyers agree to terms without ever reading them, that is, if they are provided copies at all. Many buyers don't realize that everything they agree to, including monthly fees, can change overnight without their knowledge or consent, and the law permits it. These purchases are convoluted and buyers cannot afford to be intimidated.
For each master and sub-association where the property is located, buyers must:
1. Learn of any lawsuits.
2. Demand copies of covenants, conditions, and restrictions; articles of incorporation; bylaws; rules and regulations; association insurance policies; financial records, and board meeting minutes for several years.
3. Read and understand everything. If you have problems getting any information, or if documents look suspicious, don't buy.
A common misconception about homeowner associations is that they are a democracy. They aren't. Instead, this type of purchase makes a mockery of the concept of choice.
POWER OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
"Our budget is $80 million a year. The management company commandeers our board of directors' election procedure, which is a 'conflict of interest.' This violates our bylaws election process 'secrecy and integrity' rule. Elections should never be in the hands of a management company employed by the board." Alice, owner, Leisure World, Laguna Woods.
Election of a board of directors is an election for control of money, contracts, foreclosure, and titleholders. Make no mistake directors have political and social control of the association and run it as they see fit. Unfortunately, too many seniors will automatically reelect existing board members because they fail to understand this is a business not a popularity contest.
Power over meetings, motions and lives "If I ask a question the board doesn't like, they tell me, 'sit down you're out of order!'" fumes co-op owner Helen Schroeder of Torrance. "Boards treat seniors as if we are senile, dumb and not knowledgeable."
In addition to creative accounting methods, often boards will alter the way "notice" is delivered to owners by hiding it in announcements, bulletins, or newsletters. When monthly fees go up and you complain, a board's typical response is, "we put notice in the flyer we sent out, if you didn't get it or read it, that's your problem."
All motions and rules passed by the board, even if owners disagree, bind everyone. Challenging board actions means inevitably that owners must sue and pay for their own lawsuit. In homeowner associations, nothing is "free" and nearly every avenue an owner chooses to pursue requires money, time, attorney advice, or the filing of a lawsuit. Arbitration is no better. Much time is wasted on the process itself and because boards receive legal advice and retain lawyers, seniors need to hire an attorney.
---Problems arise because association funds or insurance policies pay board attorney fees, yet owners can't utilize that attorney or access invoices they pay for
---When a board sues an owner, that lawsuit becomes an association expense, meaning all owners pay for costs, but owners finance their own lawsuits Owners wanting to stop an existing lawsuit against the board's wishes . can't. All owners must continue to pay for it and the lawyers. If the association loses, owners may have to pay the judgment award and also risk paying attorney fees for the other side.
POWER TO DENY HEIRS
Real Estate Broker and Personal Financial Planner Thomas Foster warns seniors, "Be aware that even if you don't have a mortgage and don't owe taxes, boards have the power to lien and nonjudicially foreclose for money they allege is owed."
---Boards have the power to make arbitrary demands on individual owners, raise monthly fees, sell property, enter into contracts, fine, penalize, charge interest, lien, foreclose, and keep owners mired in debt they won't live long enough to pay off.
---If the owner doesn't pay, when they die, their estate will pay.
Such unrestrained actions can prevent or hold up a person's purchase or sale, increasing escrow costs and chances of litigation. An association can prevent the purchase or sale of your property, and some include an "option to buy" clause or "right of first refusal" in their governing documents. Others exercise rights to decide whether they "like" the prospective buyer or not, before allowing them to move intothe community. Some boards have prevented heirs from occupying the unit until they have been interviewed and approved by the board, and only after the board receives proof the heir has a right to inherit the unit. Deciding whether the association will exercise such options could take months. If none of these options sound fair or equitable, they don't have to be. Purchasers voluntarily buy into private communities and are free to contract regardless of the terms.
"I won't let my mother buy a condo, it's too risky," Foster cautions. "Owners are nothing more than cash dispensers for associations."
WARNING: THOSE "PAPERS" ARE "LEGAL DOCUMENTS"
Many owners do not know the difference between petitions, proxies or ballots, and this can be dangerous. Depending on the printed language, once signed you have voted and often cannot revoke your signature.
Unfortunately, seniors usually comply with board requests for their signed proxy. Not understanding the consequences of signing any of those documents without prior legal advice can be devastating.Your signature on any one of those "papers" could allow the association to do just about anything including amending its governing documents giving it more control over money, owner assets and quality of life. You may have unwittingly agreed to pay more or allow the board to charge higher assessments. Or, it can cause the assets of the association to be sold out from under the owners with the money going to third parties; elect a board of directors which has conflicting interests; allow the board to hire a management company without consent of owners; and a host of other actions that will seriously impact, if not destroy, the living environment. This can be done in numerous ways.
Owners refusing to cooperate, or give the board their votes and proxies, can be targeted, portrayed as non-team players, and easily retaliated against. Examples include doorbells ringing mysteriously in the middle of the night, phantom phone calls, sudden disappearance of pets, additional charges, veiled threats, disregarded letters and maintenance requests, all geared to inconvenience, silence, and frighten owners into compliance.
The American Psychological Association (APA) describes emotional or psychological abuse as ranging from name-calling or being given the "silent treatment," intimidating, insulting, and threatening the individual. By APA standards, isolating or preventing the owner from partaking in their regular activities or seeing their friends, either by force, threats or through manipulation, is also abuse. Since there are no statutory penalties for errant boards, democracy fails.
REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE PROBLEMS
While funding the association business and paying for repairs and maintenance of common property, each owner is also responsible for their own home's upkeep. This means instead of paying for only one roof (your roof), you may have to share the cost of paying for 100 or 1,000 roofs. You cannot pick your roof vendor, the board does. If the board and management keep the association mired in unnecessary or costly perpetual maintenance schemes, all owners must pay for those schemes, even if they disagree with the board's decision.
AMENITIES ARE LIABILITIES
Louise, owner in an age-restricted association, complains that the trust foundation at her leisure community, "is supposed to hold all our amenities in 'trust' for owners here, but they just sold one of our buildings without owner vote. That's against the law, but they know we can't afford to hire an attorney to stop them, so they do whatever they please. They tell us, 'when you pay your dues, you have no say on where they go. So, once it leaves your hands, we do what we want.'"
Many buyers do not realize that amenities are costly liabilities. Once all units in a complex are sold, the very amenities luring buyers to purchase, can be sold out from under them at any time, not unlike "corporate raiding" of assets. Brochures boasting fancy amenities not yet built, may never be built. Existing amenities may be in such poor condition that, soon after purchase, buyers are saddled with thousands of dollars in special assessments for insurance, maintenance, repair or replacement costs. Failure to pay can result in foreclosure. If the board sells common assets, there is no guarantee that proceeds will be shared amongst the owners who sunk their money into that association. The board decides what to do with the money.
SENIORS MUST HAVE A GUARANTEED GROWING INCOME
"I can't afford to stay, and I can't afford to move," cries a Santa Monica octogenarian, and Dennis Hlavaty of San Pedro, agrees, "I'd leave here in a New York minute if I could only afford it."
All the cash capital in the association's operating funds is generated from owners. Just because you can afford to move in does not mean you can afford to stay, or that you can afford to move out.
Prior to buying a deed-restricted property, most owners are not advised that they must have a steadily increasing income to keep their home and pay trumped up fees to close escrow or refinance. Owners who cannot afford to pay their association's demands for increased fees and instant assessments that can cost thousands of dollars per owner, cannot stay (one association specially assessed each owner $1 million). Whether $1 or $1 million, seniors who cannot pay, must sell and move. Those who cannot sell quickly enough may face foreclosure, or simply have to leave their homes behind.
NOTES
This article was published in the December 2004 edition of Southern California Senior Life. Click here for more information about the author.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)