SEX, LIES, AND SATELLITES IN HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATIONS
By Donie Vanitzian, BA, JD, Arbitrator
(c)2006
Think "community" cable or internet is a good thing? Or maybe a "shared" satellite dish makes sense? Think again. Very often, homeowner association boards of directors are under the mistaken belief that "uniformity" and "conformity" is better than an owner's ability to make their own choices ‑‑ and ‑‑ for the association, they might be right. But for the owner, it is the worst possible scenario because when owners "choose" to give up their choices, they also forfeit certain rights to privacy.
HOW DOES THIS HAPPEN?
It happens because, in a legal sense, the association and its board of directors are not an "agency" and typically they are not a per se "business" soooooo they are able to circumvent legislation aimed at protecting "consumers." Whether in an association or not, homeowners are supposedly consumers. It gets worse from here.
SEDUCED INTO TRUSTING LIARS
As the authors of Villa Appalling! state "function on the premise that your board is lying to you." If you do that, you could be light‑years ahead of the other owners who think waiting for the bus arriving to "nowhere" is a good thing. By the way, they're still waiting.
Relying on the human nature of board members to respond to owners is one thing, but to rely on a board to exert equitable and impartial justice, well, that's all but impossible. Remember, this is a gang protocol and it has nothing to do with democracy or complying with the law. It never occurred to these mostly illiterate and ill‑informed gang‑banger board members that homeowners own property just like the board gang members do. Gee, that's a revelation.
By statute, in an association environment the concentration of power lies in a handful of persons on the board of directors. Whether good or bad, all boards have one thing in common: the owners (supposedly) elect them. Some boards authorize improvements for their own properties but not others. Some boards sign contracts as long as they receive big perks making it worth their while to sign. Other boards will commit the association to deals that are so egregious they are unspeakable, and some boards believe it or not, are honest and decent.
You've heard of "dog‑years" and "cat‑years" well, add "association‑years" [FN] to those explanations. Enter: the recalcitrant board of directors. By the time owners learn of any wrongdoing and start asking questions, in terms of "association‑years" it's already too late. And, if owners ask too many questions they can end up being the brunt of a board's notorious cease‑and‑desist letters or threatened with restraining orders and law suits and all the while that association time clock is knocking years off that owner's lifespan and depleting their resources, not to mention running out the statute of limitations.
In relaying their agenda to the homeowners, boards may intentionally minimize their contract dealings with cable, satellite, and internet companies. Conversely, they may launch a hard sell to convince owners that "one" cable or satellite provider is cost effective. Downplaying their poor decisions, boards may emphasize that their queries are "ongoing" when in reality they are a "done‑deal" or "back‑doored."
EXPANDING THE MEANING OF DEED‑RESTRICTIONS
While owners are sidetracked into filling out permission forms for satellite dish or cable installations, the board gives the appearance that it is concentrating on controlling association "aesthetics." Frequently, the same board decisions that benefit the association will fail to benefit owners. While on the surface it may LOOK like owners have choices, those choices might consist of nothing more than strong‑arm tactics to pick colors of paint or decide where to plant the petunias.
It is difficult to verify the board's rendition of facts because they may be laced in distortions, omissions, or subjective elaborations. Owners, who by now have become conditioned into believing and relying on lies, typically go along with board recommendations. Yet, the consequences for owners who believe such lies can be devastating and financially crippling. Whether agreeing to install cable or other similar technological services owners may have inadvertently agreed to a "right of entry." It may sound something like this, "We will have to access your unit to maintain the system." Once the "right of entry" is signed, any association employee has access to your home at any time. When an owner attempts to sue, they may learn that they consented to the "right of entry" when they signed the agreement for cable, satellite, or internet.
SILENT ACTS OF PIRACY
Some associations want centralized email, internet service providers, and so on, only because they will own your every movement. Understand that your electronic information can be subpoenaed and used in a court of law against you. The problem in an association environment is that THEY already own the contract, so guess what? They don't even have to subpoena your information because they already have it. Contemplating suing your association? Remember this: They've already got your information, but you have nothing on them.
Are your viewer choices protected? The answer to that question depends where you live and what your contract with the supplier is. When it comes to something as simple as making a routine payment for their cable, satellite, internet bills, and even association assessment payments, too many owners fail to question where their personal information goes and who has access to it. As the common interest development infrastructure becomes significantly more complicated and unpredictable, many otherwise so‑called "routine" activities morph into opportunities for identity thieves and nosey neighbors to access personal information ‑‑ YOUR personal information.
Most people believe they have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their home. Owners casually turn on their television sets and assume no one else is watching, but them. Wrong! Once the contract is signed, the cable, satellite, or internet company will typically grant rights to the "contracting party," not the owner, not the user. Owners do not ipso facto have a correlating right of access to the information gathered on them by the vendor who contracted with the board, or the vendor the board shares the information with. Because the homeowner is not the contracting party, there are no protections for the users' right to privacy. Cries about a board's "overreaching" are only an issue IF owners make it one, and stopping these actions requires unrelenting pressure by owners.
It is difficult enough to get owners to persist in viewing their association's books and records; can you imagine owners getting together to stop this invasion of privacy?
DON'T CLICK THAT MOUSE ‑‑ DON'T TOUCH THAT REMOTE
As there is no per se mandate that associations protect owner privacy, investigators have been known to pay cash for your data. Finding the weakest link, they seek out boards, management, employees, and vendors. Homeowner associations are a goldmine for boards or vendors seeking to capture information on individuals they would not otherwise be able to access.
The California Davis‑Stirling Act limits liability for boards and associations, the so‑called protections that owners THINK exist, does not. Read the Davis‑Stirling Act carefully, language allows the board to redact information for a myriad of real and imagined reasons. The statute language is porked up with words defying definitions, like "reasonably likely" or "compromise." What about this: "No association, officer, director, employee, agent or volunteer of an association shall be liable for damages to a member of the association as the result of identity theft or other breach of privacy. . ." Do you still feel safe?
DATA‑MINING INFORMATION
No California statute mandates destruction of data collected by associations. Digitized owner data is kept long after the owner has sold and moved away. Owners may be surprised to learn decades later when they least expect it; data collected by the association can surface in court. Worse, it can be used against the owner because the association owns the data.
A byproduct of an individual's usage through technology is sometimes referred to as "clickstream data." Whether by cable, satellite, or internet, clickstream data stalks your identity and tracks your usage. This data is a unique fingerprint. It exposes everything you unwittingly give it.
EVERY MOVE YOU MAKE: WE'LL BE WATCHING YOU
The vast amount of data acquired on users, especially homeowners, is frightening! Right now, you will NEVER be sure just how much information your board already has on you. The problem is that most owners GIVE that information to their board without ensuring where it is going and WITHOUT DEMANDING PROTECTIONS beyond what is written in the present‑day laws that are woefully inadequate.
Your information is ripe for data warehousing which is usually stored and centralized for easy access. There is no limit for how long it can be kept. Owners may be unaware that using a password to access an association's web site might mean you automatically consent to allowing the association to monitor your interactions and give them the right to use your personally identifiable information. These, and other collection methods increase the risk of piracy. Even ONE association‑related lapse in internet, cable, or satellite security can have devastating consequences "forever."
WERE OWNERS TOLD THAT:
$ Personal information and viewing habits may be sold or shared without owner consent? This includes the board=s access to your email habits and the content of your emails -- don=t make the mistake of believing what your board may tell you about this, they do it, they can do it, and they will continue to lie to you about it.
$ Owners cannot opt out of the board's contracting decision, even if they don't want it, and even if they don't want their house wired for it?
$ ANY board at ANY time may have unlimited access to each owner's viewing habits and are free to profile owners? This includes FUTURE boards.
$ Owners may not have access to the "same" information as the board?
$ Owners may not negotiate better deals or communicate directly with cable, satellite or internet companies because they are not the contracting party?
$ Programming and viewing choices may be changed or curtailed at any time without owner consent?
$ Owner viewing choices and clicks of the remote may be permanently logged in a file forever and information made available to "any" director ‑ even future directors?
$ The association may use an owner's viewing history, programming choices, and clicks of the remote, against them, even in court?
$ Whether they like it or not, even if an owner's data is used or misused each owner agreed to the board's choices of providers or programming?
$ If the owner happens to be employed by a cable, satellite, or internet company, they may not be able to use their company's services, discounts, or other benefits?
$ This is a ticket for an association board or their vendors to enter your home "without consent" and, they'll do it under the pretext of "right of entry" to fix the service"?
$ Owners may have a duty to disclose these problems to prospective buyers?
THE ELECTRONIC MARKETPLACE WANTS:
g your age, gender, address, phone number, e‑mail address, how much you pay, when you pay, and to whom you pay it to ‑‑ and they are willing to buy this from YOUR BOARD;
g the dates and times you turn your television set on and off and the number of times you do this;
g the channels you watched and the programs you recorded;
g web site visits and patterns of access;
g your technology and server log‑on information;
g the transfer of the owner's information to a third party is immediately facilitated when they turn on their television set or send an email transmission;
g the information collected on you that is most personal and as such, is far more dangerous because you don't see it being collected;
g technology has evolved to the point of enabling people you probably already don't trust, to record, track, and monitor information on your viewing and financial habits;
g information garnered from each individual owner goes "somewhere," meaning it is stored "forever." Off‑loading this information to the company that essentially owns it, provide the company, and ultimately your board, with a mechanism to collect and keep data and information on you.
THE OWNER'S CLICK‑LIST:
# Don't ever email the board or management company ‑‑ ever!
# Don't ever communicate with the board or management company using instant messenger.
# Don't ever make the mistake of believing that merely because you pressed the "delete" key, it deleted data.
# Don't let the board convince you that payments are easier because charges are added into association assessment fees, or that one satellite dish is aesthetically better than others.
# Don't believe that such services will cost less overall because the association will be making a contract deal.
# Don't believe that having one provider cuts down on hird party vendor traffic into the development.
# Owners need time to obtain their own legal advice in order to make an informed choice and to be able to timely challenge the board.
# The owners' privacy rights must be defined.
# Without written assurances, penalties and damages for breach, you must assume that everything you just read, is happening right now.
Before ever writing that deposit check for a property located in a common interest development with a homeowners association, buyers should be asking questions and getting answers that satisfy them. If the answers are not forthcoming and not in writing: DON'T BUY.
[FN1] coined by Donie Vanitzian.
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
WARNING ALL CONSTITUENTS: BE AFRAID, BE VERY, VERY AFRAID
WARNING ALL CONSTITUENTS: BE AFRAID, BE VERY, VERY AFRAID
By Donie Vanitzian, BA, JD, Arbitrator
(c)2006
Beware California's New Way of Government
Be Careful! This is not the way it used to be. This new bureaucratic bog down affects every voter in California in dollars and cents. Things in California have changed dramatically for the worse. For example, California homeowners: Beware of Assemblymember Ted Lieu's office and staff and other Senate and Assemblymember offices.
THE YOUNG AND BRAINLESS
Lieu's office is not an isolated event and it is not an isolated government entity. Many government departments instill their young and green staff with delusions of grandeur that they are somehow "better than" those they are hired to serve. These people have come to believe that their positions are filled with "importance" to the extent they are "protected" by the government; yes they have the government behind them because they work for an Assemblyperson or Senator. This gives them the freedom to be combative, defensive, and hell‑bent in protecting their own jobs and employees at any cost ‑ even in reinterpreting what the constituent says. If they want to destroy the constituent they can do so easily, with one phone call, with one "over imagined" statement, even with one lie. So proud of themselves that they didn't take any sh*t from a VOTER one can just see that staffer when he hangs up the phone slamming the high‑fives: See! I didn't let Mrs. Schmuck get away with THAT. Never mind what that VOTER was trying to get across to that office, it now becomes more important not to "take it," whatever "it" is. Staffer flunkies are found everywhere, not just in Lieu's office, and they are per se believed before the constituent's rendition of what was and wasn't said takes place.
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE CODE‑WORDS
I know a government agent who was on her day off trying to accomplish something in another government office. After two months of getting the run‑around and being sent from one office to another, she eventually ended up right back where she started. Her statute of limitations clock was still running and she was running out of time on a matter of compliance. This time, at the same office in front of the same incompetent clerk she made the mistake of somewhat raising her voice and questioning the incompetent clerk. Immediately several deputies arrived with guns in one hand and cuffs in another, telling her to come with them quietly or they would arrest her. Had it not been for the fact that her husband is a deputy sheriff himself, guess where she would have been taken. The reason? She questioned the clerk who was responsible for sending her on bogus escapes for two months why he LIED? Rather than answer the question the clerk signaled "the code" to the deputies indicating the woman was "disruptive" or "threatening" therefore "remove her."
In another example, the girl behind the counter said to an elderly woman in front of me in line, "Are YOU telling ME how to do MY job?" The old woman (in a walker and with a rather conspicuous hearing aid) turned around and asked a person in line, "Did you hear what she said, I didn't hear. What did she say?" Counter girl: "Are YOU making FUN of ME?" Dazed, the old woman didn't have a clue what was happening, but before she knew it, two thugs in uniform grabbed her and removed her from line. The counter girl said: "Next." As I left the building a police car was putting the old woman in the back seat.
GOADING PEOPLE INTO RAISING THEIR VOICE
The new terrorism appears to be sanctioned against innocent individuals who, out of frustration make the perilous mistake of raising their voice. Today, a "perceived" threat, real or imagined can have dire consequences ‑ yet there are no consequences for government workers who use that ability to ruin the lives of those who are forced to deal with that agency or department. Constituents (VOTERS) are placed in a situation where they must watch every word they say to any of their representatives because those answering the phone are in more powerful positions than they would have otherwise been had they been working for a used car lot where the majority should be employed today. Those answering the phone in a government office will unfortunately be ipso facto believed in what they say before the constituent gets a chance to defend himself.
Confusing or tripping‑up the caller is the new game on the block for bored employees. Double‑talking, sabotage, and get‑rid‑of‑the‑caller only brings the employee closer to collecting a paycheck and pension.
WE NEVER GOT A MESSAGE FROM YOU
Message? What message? After an hour of yes you did‑no we didn't, the question becomes: What does this mean for constituents? It may mean that his campaign donors like other elected officials, are the new breed of office workers who are brainwashed into believing that their "job" security is worth more than a constituent‑voter trying to get through to their representative. Whatever you do, don't call them what they are: CIVIL SERVANTS.
Most of the Senators and Assemblypersons' offices aren't interested in what you have to say, their agendas are set so far in advance that they can't afford being derailed by a good idea brought forward by a mere constituent ‑ or someone who is not a campaign donor. In other words, they are in their own world and not the world they have been elected to serve. Just take a look at all the re‑named highways and new holidays that occur every year. The time wasted in congress just to pay homage to a dead issue so as not to offend any particular group has cost this state billions of dollars. Meanwhile, the REAL business is dead.
HE‑SHE‑IT
Political incorrectness can get you arrested. Choose your words carefully. Most government office workers reply depends on what they THINK they heard you say, their response may hinge on your every word. The public is now dealing with a lowered mentality and the ultimate in dumbing down: "I am NOT a civil servant!! I work for the ASSEMBLYPERSON DAMMIT!! I WORK FOR DA GUH‑VA‑MINT." Across the state, when attempting to contact their representatives many people are experiencing this lack of mentality. Complaints abound. The definitions of the "usual" job descriptions have taken on incredible and farfetched new meanings. There are NO more secretaries or assistants, everyone must now have IMPORTANT sounding titles that self‑inflate egos and stroke the prowess of these new young hirees. For instance, take the title "Field Representative." Seriously, what do you think that person does? Here's how it was explained to me: he presents certifications to people that Assemblyman Lieu would have otherwise been there to hand to the recipient but didn't AND, "I attend community events." Excuse me? We now PAY a STAFF to make public appearances for the ELECTED Assemblyperson? The Assemblyman can't even be bothered to APPEAR before the people who elected him?
Constituents are now shuffled into endless loops of no return. Excuse follows excuse. Your name is now in a database of "combatants."
STUPID EMPLOYEES KEEP US IN OFFICE
The pay's not great so we are extremely fortunate to have this fantastic hardworking staff. Yes, a Senator actually said that to me in defending his staff's blatant and indefensible incompetence. He went on to say, "if it wasn't for the prestige of working here, I wouldn't have a staff." PUH‑LEEZE! These government offices have adopted the private business sector's mantra of instilling and promoting a "we" attitude in their staff. The belief is that, that assemblyperson or senator would not have been elected if it were not for THIS staff. This attitude consists of a smiling and cheerful belief that these highs school staffers are doing very important work for the People and by virtue of their involvement in that office, these school kids are equally as important as the elected official himself.
These on‑the‑payroll employees are lead to believe that they are more important than the constituent‑voters, and to accomplish that, they are made to feel special and more important than they actually are. The government accomplishes this goal effortlessly at minimal cost, by upgrading the employee's title, gifting small gratuitous tokens or accolades, or sending him on government sponsored motivational‑training seminars. Better yet, they schedule more meetings ‑‑ because meetings make those underlings feel oh‑so‑important, i.e., more important than they are. ACTING as if that employee is THAT important, the underlings are encouraged to share their genius thoughts with the office. The effects of these really important meetings and titles are accomplished effortlessly without any upgrade in salary or authority. Even without the authority, any staffer in these positions are dangerous because of the power they wield. But even though the job description hasn't changed, there are no longer any "secretaries," but there are lots of "assistants."
One arrogant staffer said, "Let me explain to you how the government works because it doesn't seem like you know." Followed by, "what did you say your name was again? Spell it."
Many complaints and even court documents refer to government employees and clerks as incompetent and accuse them of dishonesty, stupidity, dereliction of duty, and favoritism toward some and not others. One attorney in a brief, actually stated that "in order to be a federal crime and to have a crime prosecuted in federal court as opposed to state court, there has to be what is kind of a stupid word, but you know lawyers; they have to come up with stupid words to make themselves look important. And since Congress, of course, is made of primarily lawyers, all our laws are written stupidly, and no one can understand them but lawyers, and that keeps lawyers employed." I wonder if he still has his government job?
Others have said that:
"most public defenders are 'simply hacks'; assistant prosecutors are there for the 'government coffee suck in lieu of more arduous, stress‑laden and challenging work'; violent criminals are almost always poor and stupid; police officers almost always lie; most family‑related pathologies are due in large part to a 73% female working population; parents who both work outside the home are self‑absorbed and negligent; and the entire drug industry is fueled by sociopathic reckless youth from single‑parent homes."
Yes, it is true, that paragraph was filed in a brief at the court.
LISTEN AS IF YOUR LIFE DEPENDS ON IT
Individuals must retrain themselves to listen very carefully. Understand that "Very carefully" now means:
$ Listen to every word that is spoken to you.
$ Don't interject.
* Don't assume.
$ Don't presume.
$ Don't read into it.
$ Don't ask too many questions.
$ Avoid unnecessary conversation.
$ Keep your questions at a minimum and make sure they are thought‑out in advance.
$ Ask only questions that are absolutely necessary.
$ Watch your body language as it can easily be misinterpreted. Don=t even shake your head or let your eyes wander. Stay focused. Do not nod your head in disagreement or agreement.
$ Don't give them a reason to do something to you.
$ Respond carefully, if at all.
$ When you enter a government office with a handbag, wallet, briefcase, file folder, or envelope, make sure it is empty.
$ Once those officials think you are on a fishing expedition, it's over for you. Many of these offices record every word, but even if you want a copy of that recording you won't get it.
$ Try to get their response in writing.
Know this: Sometimes it is better to cut your losses, say nothing, walk the hell away, and get outta dodge.
By Donie Vanitzian, BA, JD, Arbitrator
(c)2006
Beware California's New Way of Government
Be Careful! This is not the way it used to be. This new bureaucratic bog down affects every voter in California in dollars and cents. Things in California have changed dramatically for the worse. For example, California homeowners: Beware of Assemblymember Ted Lieu's office and staff and other Senate and Assemblymember offices.
THE YOUNG AND BRAINLESS
Lieu's office is not an isolated event and it is not an isolated government entity. Many government departments instill their young and green staff with delusions of grandeur that they are somehow "better than" those they are hired to serve. These people have come to believe that their positions are filled with "importance" to the extent they are "protected" by the government; yes they have the government behind them because they work for an Assemblyperson or Senator. This gives them the freedom to be combative, defensive, and hell‑bent in protecting their own jobs and employees at any cost ‑ even in reinterpreting what the constituent says. If they want to destroy the constituent they can do so easily, with one phone call, with one "over imagined" statement, even with one lie. So proud of themselves that they didn't take any sh*t from a VOTER one can just see that staffer when he hangs up the phone slamming the high‑fives: See! I didn't let Mrs. Schmuck get away with THAT. Never mind what that VOTER was trying to get across to that office, it now becomes more important not to "take it," whatever "it" is. Staffer flunkies are found everywhere, not just in Lieu's office, and they are per se believed before the constituent's rendition of what was and wasn't said takes place.
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE CODE‑WORDS
I know a government agent who was on her day off trying to accomplish something in another government office. After two months of getting the run‑around and being sent from one office to another, she eventually ended up right back where she started. Her statute of limitations clock was still running and she was running out of time on a matter of compliance. This time, at the same office in front of the same incompetent clerk she made the mistake of somewhat raising her voice and questioning the incompetent clerk. Immediately several deputies arrived with guns in one hand and cuffs in another, telling her to come with them quietly or they would arrest her. Had it not been for the fact that her husband is a deputy sheriff himself, guess where she would have been taken. The reason? She questioned the clerk who was responsible for sending her on bogus escapes for two months why he LIED? Rather than answer the question the clerk signaled "the code" to the deputies indicating the woman was "disruptive" or "threatening" therefore "remove her."
In another example, the girl behind the counter said to an elderly woman in front of me in line, "Are YOU telling ME how to do MY job?" The old woman (in a walker and with a rather conspicuous hearing aid) turned around and asked a person in line, "Did you hear what she said, I didn't hear. What did she say?" Counter girl: "Are YOU making FUN of ME?" Dazed, the old woman didn't have a clue what was happening, but before she knew it, two thugs in uniform grabbed her and removed her from line. The counter girl said: "Next." As I left the building a police car was putting the old woman in the back seat.
GOADING PEOPLE INTO RAISING THEIR VOICE
The new terrorism appears to be sanctioned against innocent individuals who, out of frustration make the perilous mistake of raising their voice. Today, a "perceived" threat, real or imagined can have dire consequences ‑ yet there are no consequences for government workers who use that ability to ruin the lives of those who are forced to deal with that agency or department. Constituents (VOTERS) are placed in a situation where they must watch every word they say to any of their representatives because those answering the phone are in more powerful positions than they would have otherwise been had they been working for a used car lot where the majority should be employed today. Those answering the phone in a government office will unfortunately be ipso facto believed in what they say before the constituent gets a chance to defend himself.
Confusing or tripping‑up the caller is the new game on the block for bored employees. Double‑talking, sabotage, and get‑rid‑of‑the‑caller only brings the employee closer to collecting a paycheck and pension.
WE NEVER GOT A MESSAGE FROM YOU
Message? What message? After an hour of yes you did‑no we didn't, the question becomes: What does this mean for constituents? It may mean that his campaign donors like other elected officials, are the new breed of office workers who are brainwashed into believing that their "job" security is worth more than a constituent‑voter trying to get through to their representative. Whatever you do, don't call them what they are: CIVIL SERVANTS.
Most of the Senators and Assemblypersons' offices aren't interested in what you have to say, their agendas are set so far in advance that they can't afford being derailed by a good idea brought forward by a mere constituent ‑ or someone who is not a campaign donor. In other words, they are in their own world and not the world they have been elected to serve. Just take a look at all the re‑named highways and new holidays that occur every year. The time wasted in congress just to pay homage to a dead issue so as not to offend any particular group has cost this state billions of dollars. Meanwhile, the REAL business is dead.
HE‑SHE‑IT
Political incorrectness can get you arrested. Choose your words carefully. Most government office workers reply depends on what they THINK they heard you say, their response may hinge on your every word. The public is now dealing with a lowered mentality and the ultimate in dumbing down: "I am NOT a civil servant!! I work for the ASSEMBLYPERSON DAMMIT!! I WORK FOR DA GUH‑VA‑MINT." Across the state, when attempting to contact their representatives many people are experiencing this lack of mentality. Complaints abound. The definitions of the "usual" job descriptions have taken on incredible and farfetched new meanings. There are NO more secretaries or assistants, everyone must now have IMPORTANT sounding titles that self‑inflate egos and stroke the prowess of these new young hirees. For instance, take the title "Field Representative." Seriously, what do you think that person does? Here's how it was explained to me: he presents certifications to people that Assemblyman Lieu would have otherwise been there to hand to the recipient but didn't AND, "I attend community events." Excuse me? We now PAY a STAFF to make public appearances for the ELECTED Assemblyperson? The Assemblyman can't even be bothered to APPEAR before the people who elected him?
Constituents are now shuffled into endless loops of no return. Excuse follows excuse. Your name is now in a database of "combatants."
STUPID EMPLOYEES KEEP US IN OFFICE
The pay's not great so we are extremely fortunate to have this fantastic hardworking staff. Yes, a Senator actually said that to me in defending his staff's blatant and indefensible incompetence. He went on to say, "if it wasn't for the prestige of working here, I wouldn't have a staff." PUH‑LEEZE! These government offices have adopted the private business sector's mantra of instilling and promoting a "we" attitude in their staff. The belief is that, that assemblyperson or senator would not have been elected if it were not for THIS staff. This attitude consists of a smiling and cheerful belief that these highs school staffers are doing very important work for the People and by virtue of their involvement in that office, these school kids are equally as important as the elected official himself.
These on‑the‑payroll employees are lead to believe that they are more important than the constituent‑voters, and to accomplish that, they are made to feel special and more important than they actually are. The government accomplishes this goal effortlessly at minimal cost, by upgrading the employee's title, gifting small gratuitous tokens or accolades, or sending him on government sponsored motivational‑training seminars. Better yet, they schedule more meetings ‑‑ because meetings make those underlings feel oh‑so‑important, i.e., more important than they are. ACTING as if that employee is THAT important, the underlings are encouraged to share their genius thoughts with the office. The effects of these really important meetings and titles are accomplished effortlessly without any upgrade in salary or authority. Even without the authority, any staffer in these positions are dangerous because of the power they wield. But even though the job description hasn't changed, there are no longer any "secretaries," but there are lots of "assistants."
One arrogant staffer said, "Let me explain to you how the government works because it doesn't seem like you know." Followed by, "what did you say your name was again? Spell it."
Many complaints and even court documents refer to government employees and clerks as incompetent and accuse them of dishonesty, stupidity, dereliction of duty, and favoritism toward some and not others. One attorney in a brief, actually stated that "in order to be a federal crime and to have a crime prosecuted in federal court as opposed to state court, there has to be what is kind of a stupid word, but you know lawyers; they have to come up with stupid words to make themselves look important. And since Congress, of course, is made of primarily lawyers, all our laws are written stupidly, and no one can understand them but lawyers, and that keeps lawyers employed." I wonder if he still has his government job?
Others have said that:
"most public defenders are 'simply hacks'; assistant prosecutors are there for the 'government coffee suck in lieu of more arduous, stress‑laden and challenging work'; violent criminals are almost always poor and stupid; police officers almost always lie; most family‑related pathologies are due in large part to a 73% female working population; parents who both work outside the home are self‑absorbed and negligent; and the entire drug industry is fueled by sociopathic reckless youth from single‑parent homes."
Yes, it is true, that paragraph was filed in a brief at the court.
LISTEN AS IF YOUR LIFE DEPENDS ON IT
Individuals must retrain themselves to listen very carefully. Understand that "Very carefully" now means:
$ Listen to every word that is spoken to you.
$ Don't interject.
* Don't assume.
$ Don't presume.
$ Don't read into it.
$ Don't ask too many questions.
$ Avoid unnecessary conversation.
$ Keep your questions at a minimum and make sure they are thought‑out in advance.
$ Ask only questions that are absolutely necessary.
$ Watch your body language as it can easily be misinterpreted. Don=t even shake your head or let your eyes wander. Stay focused. Do not nod your head in disagreement or agreement.
$ Don't give them a reason to do something to you.
$ Respond carefully, if at all.
$ When you enter a government office with a handbag, wallet, briefcase, file folder, or envelope, make sure it is empty.
$ Once those officials think you are on a fishing expedition, it's over for you. Many of these offices record every word, but even if you want a copy of that recording you won't get it.
$ Try to get their response in writing.
Know this: Sometimes it is better to cut your losses, say nothing, walk the hell away, and get outta dodge.
Thursday, January 17, 2008
THE TEMPLE OF BLAME AND WHOLESALE TITLEHOLDER DISENFRANCHISEMENT
January 17, 2008
Via facsimile and United States Postal Service Mail
California Law Revision Commission
4000 Middlefield Road, Room D-1
Palo Alto, California 94303-4739
Attention: Mr. Hebert
THE TEMPLE OF BLAME
AND
WHOLESALE TITLEHOLDER DISENFRANCHISEMENT
Re: Statutory Clarification and Simplification of CID Law
Table of Contents
? I. "Due Notice" to All Common Interest Development Titleholders
? II. Fiscal Impact on the State of California
? III. Gaping Loopholes and Crossovers Exist in the California Law Revision Commission's Proposed "Statutory Clarification and Simplification of CID Law"
? IV. CLRC's Circumvention of Public Complaints
? V. Bypassing the Legislative Process by Using "Made to Order" Changes That Include Altering Substantive Issues Resulting in Titleholder Disenfranchisement
? VI. Moratorium on Changes to Davis-Stirling Act; No So-Called Bill of Rights Needed; Creation of Victim's Fund for Deed-restricted Owners
? VII. Voluntary Waiver
? VIII. Warning "The Staff Recommends Against That Change"
Dear Mr. Hebert,
When are you finally going to get it?
There's nothing "simple" about this project of yours, but there's everything "complicated" about it.
What's the rush? Why does it seem that you are in such a hurry to push through this pork-barrel project of yours? Could it be because your aiders and abettors over there in the California Legislature are headed for terming out their term limits and the money party might be nearing an end?
Its been a good year for you and the Commission Mr. Hebert, you've all collected another year's worth of salaries, while the rest of California residential deed-restricted titleholders have been paying, paying, paying, with no end in sight. Now, with your so-called S-i-m-p-l-i-f-i-c-a-t-i-o-n nonsense, they will keep paying, but the difference will be that they will be paying more.
Typical of the California Law Revision Commission, rather than concentrating efforts in cleaning up the Probate Code, Evidence Code, Court Gridlock, Code of Civil Procedure, you now float to the surface of the shallowest of ponds whose laws encompass Common Interest Developments. You dig the biggest hole, as the Commission did in 2000, and then throw the statutory-financers, that is, the "Titleholders" into that hole to sink or swim on their own. You do this with no quantifiable result of your past projects and with criticism of such past projects gaining momentum.
Typical of the California Law Revision Commission, it has trivialized its latest project called "Statutory Clarification and Simplification of CID Law."
Typical of the California Law Revision Commission reports to the public that it will be several years before this is presented to the Legislature, now, while you have ratcheted up the speed in the fast lane, you signal right and turn left into the 2008 legislature.
Frankly, I'm really interested in exactly HOW this entire project of yours came to be in the first place and exactly who's idea it was. No, the owners didn't want it. The Owners wanted fairness--which your Commission purported to give them for several years in a row. That so-called fairness was an unmitigated failure.
It now appears clear; that so-called fairness campaign was nothing more than a ruse meant to create havoc in order to substantiate your bigger cash cow titled the "Statutory Clarification and Simplification of CID Law." If I didn't know better I'd claim this is a calculated fraud perpetrated on the public for no other reason than to rewrite a law that has existed for two decades, that people have come to know, and that the Legislature refuses to amend properly prior to its and the many other Chartered amendments.
It appears that it is easier to rewrite than to do it right in the first place.
That aside, the California Law Revision Commission should not submit its so-called handy work under-the-guise of "Statutory Clarification and Simplification of CID Law" to the Davis-Stirling Act in 2008 to the Legislature. As usual, it is half-baked and ill-thought out.
A project this massive and with far-reaching consequences for millions of titleholders should be written (or, as it pertains to Mr. Hebert's tutelage, REWRITTEN) with greater care. Introducing a wholesale rewrite as you are presently doing should wait until well after 2008, if it is introduced at all.
When the public refers to distrust of government, they are referring to actions such as described in this correspondence.
I.
"DUE NOTICE" TO ALL COMMON INTEREST DEVELOPMENT TITLEHOLDERS
The California Law Revision Commission has a higher duty to the public than it is practicing.
If the California Law Revision Commission really wants the input of owners, and not just industry lawyers and industry in general, then immediately without delay, purchase and place full page advertisements in major newspapers throughout California for one year and simultaneously send them to EVERY common interest development titleholder informing them that you are going to be altering said laws, that means ALL the laws that pertain to this type of deed-restricted property ownership.
It is not enough to claim that because the California Law Revision Commission has an Internet website that is sufficient "notice." It is not.
Every owner is not computer literate.
Every owner does not have a computer.
Every owner cannot afford a computer.
Every owner cannot afford Internet access.
Every owner is not aware of the California Law Revision Commission, what you are doing, what you do, what your import is on their ownership, and who pays your salaries; but more to the point, they are absolutely unaware that your actions will detrimentally affect the lives of millions of titleholders and prospective titleholders.
I am appalled at the California Law Revision Commission's ill-conceived project and the speed and momentum this so-called Agency is generating for its personal project. The wholesale rewriting and revamping of a substantial statute, i.e., the Davis-Stirling Act (Civil Code Sections 1350 through 1378) should be better thought out and in a sense, "beta tested" prior to deciding which laws will become incorporated into the present code, and which laws will be amended.
The California Law Revision Commission needs to take into account that millions of titleholders in California are unaware of the CLRC's existence and/or import. While the California Law Revision Commission may receive some letters from titleholders, the majority of the public is absolutely unaware of:
(a) what the California Law Revision Commission has in store for them and are therefore unable to comment or participate in any meaningful way;
(b) what the California Law Revision Commission's purpose is, and what it does;
(c) that the California Law Revision Commission has a heavy influence in the statutes and laws governing how this segment of residential deed-restricted titleholders will buy, sell, own, and rent, within the confines of common interest developments throughout this state.
Those who are aware are not quite sure that they fully understand the effects of the CLRC's wholesale rewrites.
II.
FISCAL IMPACT ON THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
California is presently cash and income strapped to the extent of at least $14.5 billion dollars in debt with proposed cuts to be made in every State Department.[1] One can only hope that one of the departments that will be faced with budget cuts will be the California Law Revision Commission.
Perhaps the reason you appear to be impetuously pushing this project through is precisely because of those budget cuts and your fear the project will be axed.
The proposed changes, i.e. "Statutory Clarification and Simplification of CID Law" are anything but "simple." They are complicated with far-reaching consequences for those who will be bound by them.
III.
GAPING LOOPHOLES AND CROSSOVERS EXIST IN THE CALIFORNIA LAW REVISION COMMISSION'S PROPOSED "STATUTORY CLARIFICATION AND SIMPLIFICATION OF CID LAW"
Coincidentally, too many of the changes the California Law Revision Commission proposes to incorporate into said text, were already posed to the California Legislature to no avail. I know this because I proposed the changes and brought those and other issues to the attention of Legislators, Legislature and the Governor. Now, as then, I was ignored. In my possession are documents and correspondence to Assemblypersons and Senators attempting to bring legal flaws inclusive of various statutory loopholes to their attention prior to passing certain provisions and amendments to sections--but went unheeded.
Still, in the hundreds of proposed pages of text generated by the California Law Revision Commission, the bad laws, including loopholes, remain.
Mr. Hebert, I know you are aware of these issues because I have written to you about them before, and you have my book, and you have seen my latest edition of Common Interest Developments--Homeowners Guide, Thomson-West, 2007-2008. What is surprising is that you and your "Commission" continue to bastardize an entire statute that could have been properly executed from the beginning but was not. Instead you and the Commission are doing what the drafters of the initial Davis-Stirling Act did: Sloppy work.
The results of sloppy work equates to bigger problems and higher costs for those purchasers of property and existing owners, than had existed prior to the wholesale rewrite you are conducting right now. It also costs the State of California money.
IV.
CLRC'S CIRCUMVENTION OF PUBLIC COMPLAINTS
In my opinion and the opinion of others, the California Law Revision Commission, whether artful or not, IS circumventing the real issues surrounding public complaints of said laws pertaining to common interest developments.
For all the pages of text you have produced, and all the rhetoric, pomp, and circumstance, save the back-patting, the approximate 300 pages of slop miserably fails to protect titleholder assets.
It fails to provide per se penalties against third-party management companies and their employees, fails to provide per se penalties against recalcitrant boards, fails to per se assist titleholders in protecting their assets, fails to provide a viable avenue of redress for the mounting problems associated with common interest developments, and homeowner associations. Every avenue the titleholder attempts to pursue for "fairness" is a costly dead-end--no thanks to you and your Commission.
The so-called pre-existing, or statutory avenues for "redress" are woefully inadequate and in theory while they may look good on paper, they are all but useless in application AND they are NOT cost effective for the owner.[2] Implementation of many sections of the Davis-Stirling Act (even with your so-called Simplification) does not address the myriad of crossover laws, existing loopholes, and language and directions are frankly, do not work in "real life."
V.
BYPASSING THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS BY USING "MADE TO ORDER" CHANGES THAT INCLUDE ALTERING SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES RESULTING IN TITLEHOLDER DISENFRANCHISEMENT
If owners knew of the dire implications of the California Law Revision Commission's so-called "substantive issues" terminology, they'd be all over your Commission like a dirty shirt. So too, if owners really understood that the fancy language you propose on paper would have a detrimental (ie, legal) effect once implemented, they'd be all over your Commission like a dirty shirt.
Subtle change? Not! For instance, the California Law Revision Commission has decided to make a SUBTLE change in words. Who would be the wiser? For example, take a look at your Section 4540. The CLRC decides to delete and cross-out just two words. The two words are: "adjourn to."
The CLRC decides to include instead, the words "meet in." Gee, doesn't sound so bad does it? Wrong!
That example of the CLRC's so-called SIMPLIFICATION is DISASTROUS to owners. It removes the "session" requirement and converts the "session" to a type of executive meeting or secret meeting that is not allowed presently under the Davis-Stirling Act. Also in that example, it appears to seriously circumvent the Open Meeting Act in a variety of ways. Because owners cannot presently attend an executive session, this change in the LAW will give boards carte blanche to meet in secret -- how would an owner EVER know that the board is meeting pursuant to LAW because it is now NOT a "session" it is a bona fide --secret-- MEETING -- just what the industry ordered from the Commission. Other problems associated with that so-called SIMPLIFICATION are equally disastrous.
One of the most contentious and complained about topics that readers to my co-authored Los Angeles Times, Associations column in the Real Estate section write about, has to do with that very topic of secret meetings, executive sessions and board meetings that are called "executive board meetings" whatever the heck THAT'S supposed to be! Other complain that advisors to boards keep informing them their association does not fall under the Davis-Stirling Act -- all because they do not want to abide by the law.
Boards have been meeting in secret regardless of the Davis-Stirling Act because they suffer no quantifiable penalties at law for doing so. Interference by third party vendors encouraging such lawbreaking actions is growing at a record pace. But precisely because they are "third party vendors" (eg, management companies) they contract directly with a board of directors and are basically unaccountable to the owners who pay their salaries. They are in a sense able to interfere to their heart's content without fear of prosecution.
Your Section 4540 is just what association industry advisors ordered, give the boards free reign.
The CLRC gives the association industry and the out-of-control-boards just what they want --- a type of "get out of jail card" -- meet in "executive session" without notice, without a duly convened meeting, any time they want and without any accountability whatsoever. And, check out the free-for-all line-up you've given the board, hell, they just hit the lottery big time. There goes accountability and openness right out the window. Why? Because of the California Law Revision's deletion of otherwise seemingly innocuous TWO WORDS.
The California Law Revision Commission's entire preposterous project titled "Statutory Clarification and Simplification of CID Law" project is laden with problems similar to that just described, only worse.
VI.
MORATORIUM ON CHANGES TO DAVIS-STIRLING ACT; NO SO-CALLED BILL OF RIGHTS NEEDED; CREATION OF VICTIM'S FUND FOR DEED-RESTRICTED OWNERS
As I have written before to you, there needs be a moratorium on changes to the Davis-Stirling Act in general.
Until the California Law Revision Commission completely expunges the word "property" from the statutes governing purchase, sale, and ownership of residential deed-restricted properties, the titleholders have a vested interest in their property.
There should be no separate, or independent "bill of rights" in the California Statutes for residential deed-restricted property owners. Instead, the US Constitution should apply and the titleholder's "rights" should be written into said statutes by way of realistic redress and penalties against associations, their third party providers and advisors, and boards of directors. The benefits of said penalties must flow directly to the affected titleholder(s).
There should also be created, a "Victims Fund" for any titleholder who is a victim of the aforementioned who break the laws.
However, to date, and even with the California Law Revision Commission recommendations, the titleholders have no per se "rights" and they have no protections.[3]
VII.
VOLUNTARY WAIVER
The California Law Revision' Commission makes reference to very dangerous combination of words: Voluntary Waiver. This must be removed (let alone clarified and defined) from the statute sections. That is dangerous for titleholders because statutorily the titleholder "voluntarily waives" certain rights on purchase. Yet, this appears to be intentionally misleading in the California Law Revision' Commission's language pertaining to its project titled: Statutory Clarification and Simplification of CID Law.
In effect, this means, that everything that is being proposed is superseded by the purchase of such "property." What layperson would understand the LEGAL implications of giving up THOSE rights by a stroke of a pen on an escrow document that they probably did not read, or if they read, did not fully comprehend?
VIII.
WARNING: "THE STAFF RECOMMENDS AGAINST THAT CHANGE"
John Wayne once said, "Who the hell are you?"
Interestingly, way too many serious and pertinent suggestions from the public are pooh-poohed by the California Law Revision Commission with the one-liner brush off comment "the staff recommends against that change." Most of your reasons for discounting such changes appear to be without justification.
A better idea would be that the California Legislature issue a warning to all residential deed-restricted owners and potential owners of the perils of such ownership that inures to the detriment of the titleholder. Just as "truth in lending" has become an issue, so too must truth in these statutory provisions be an issue in this wholesale rewrite that the public has been handicapped in controlling.
Despite extremely naive and trusting nature of most buyers and owners and despite the availability of SOME media coverage of the legal problems surrounding ownership of these properties, owners do not fully appreciate the seriousness of the situation. The California Law Revision Commission has not helped--they have instead, hurt these consumers.
Thank you for your time.
Very truly yours,
/s/
Donie Vanitzian, J.D., Arbitrator
[1] See e.g., J. Rau & E. Halper, Pain of Proposed State Budget Cuts is Widely Spread, L.A. Times, Jan. 12, 2008.
[2] Donie Vanitzian, Common Interest Developments, (Thomson-West, 2007-2008 ed).
[3] See e.g., Business and Professions Code sections 11018 et seq.
Via facsimile and United States Postal Service Mail
California Law Revision Commission
4000 Middlefield Road, Room D-1
Palo Alto, California 94303-4739
Attention: Mr. Hebert
THE TEMPLE OF BLAME
AND
WHOLESALE TITLEHOLDER DISENFRANCHISEMENT
Re: Statutory Clarification and Simplification of CID Law
Table of Contents
? I. "Due Notice" to All Common Interest Development Titleholders
? II. Fiscal Impact on the State of California
? III. Gaping Loopholes and Crossovers Exist in the California Law Revision Commission's Proposed "Statutory Clarification and Simplification of CID Law"
? IV. CLRC's Circumvention of Public Complaints
? V. Bypassing the Legislative Process by Using "Made to Order" Changes That Include Altering Substantive Issues Resulting in Titleholder Disenfranchisement
? VI. Moratorium on Changes to Davis-Stirling Act; No So-Called Bill of Rights Needed; Creation of Victim's Fund for Deed-restricted Owners
? VII. Voluntary Waiver
? VIII. Warning "The Staff Recommends Against That Change"
Dear Mr. Hebert,
When are you finally going to get it?
There's nothing "simple" about this project of yours, but there's everything "complicated" about it.
What's the rush? Why does it seem that you are in such a hurry to push through this pork-barrel project of yours? Could it be because your aiders and abettors over there in the California Legislature are headed for terming out their term limits and the money party might be nearing an end?
Its been a good year for you and the Commission Mr. Hebert, you've all collected another year's worth of salaries, while the rest of California residential deed-restricted titleholders have been paying, paying, paying, with no end in sight. Now, with your so-called S-i-m-p-l-i-f-i-c-a-t-i-o-n nonsense, they will keep paying, but the difference will be that they will be paying more.
Typical of the California Law Revision Commission, rather than concentrating efforts in cleaning up the Probate Code, Evidence Code, Court Gridlock, Code of Civil Procedure, you now float to the surface of the shallowest of ponds whose laws encompass Common Interest Developments. You dig the biggest hole, as the Commission did in 2000, and then throw the statutory-financers, that is, the "Titleholders" into that hole to sink or swim on their own. You do this with no quantifiable result of your past projects and with criticism of such past projects gaining momentum.
Typical of the California Law Revision Commission, it has trivialized its latest project called "Statutory Clarification and Simplification of CID Law."
Typical of the California Law Revision Commission reports to the public that it will be several years before this is presented to the Legislature, now, while you have ratcheted up the speed in the fast lane, you signal right and turn left into the 2008 legislature.
Frankly, I'm really interested in exactly HOW this entire project of yours came to be in the first place and exactly who's idea it was. No, the owners didn't want it. The Owners wanted fairness--which your Commission purported to give them for several years in a row. That so-called fairness was an unmitigated failure.
It now appears clear; that so-called fairness campaign was nothing more than a ruse meant to create havoc in order to substantiate your bigger cash cow titled the "Statutory Clarification and Simplification of CID Law." If I didn't know better I'd claim this is a calculated fraud perpetrated on the public for no other reason than to rewrite a law that has existed for two decades, that people have come to know, and that the Legislature refuses to amend properly prior to its and the many other Chartered amendments.
It appears that it is easier to rewrite than to do it right in the first place.
That aside, the California Law Revision Commission should not submit its so-called handy work under-the-guise of "Statutory Clarification and Simplification of CID Law" to the Davis-Stirling Act in 2008 to the Legislature. As usual, it is half-baked and ill-thought out.
A project this massive and with far-reaching consequences for millions of titleholders should be written (or, as it pertains to Mr. Hebert's tutelage, REWRITTEN) with greater care. Introducing a wholesale rewrite as you are presently doing should wait until well after 2008, if it is introduced at all.
When the public refers to distrust of government, they are referring to actions such as described in this correspondence.
I.
"DUE NOTICE" TO ALL COMMON INTEREST DEVELOPMENT TITLEHOLDERS
The California Law Revision Commission has a higher duty to the public than it is practicing.
If the California Law Revision Commission really wants the input of owners, and not just industry lawyers and industry in general, then immediately without delay, purchase and place full page advertisements in major newspapers throughout California for one year and simultaneously send them to EVERY common interest development titleholder informing them that you are going to be altering said laws, that means ALL the laws that pertain to this type of deed-restricted property ownership.
It is not enough to claim that because the California Law Revision Commission has an Internet website that is sufficient "notice." It is not.
Every owner is not computer literate.
Every owner does not have a computer.
Every owner cannot afford a computer.
Every owner cannot afford Internet access.
Every owner is not aware of the California Law Revision Commission, what you are doing, what you do, what your import is on their ownership, and who pays your salaries; but more to the point, they are absolutely unaware that your actions will detrimentally affect the lives of millions of titleholders and prospective titleholders.
I am appalled at the California Law Revision Commission's ill-conceived project and the speed and momentum this so-called Agency is generating for its personal project. The wholesale rewriting and revamping of a substantial statute, i.e., the Davis-Stirling Act (Civil Code Sections 1350 through 1378) should be better thought out and in a sense, "beta tested" prior to deciding which laws will become incorporated into the present code, and which laws will be amended.
The California Law Revision Commission needs to take into account that millions of titleholders in California are unaware of the CLRC's existence and/or import. While the California Law Revision Commission may receive some letters from titleholders, the majority of the public is absolutely unaware of:
(a) what the California Law Revision Commission has in store for them and are therefore unable to comment or participate in any meaningful way;
(b) what the California Law Revision Commission's purpose is, and what it does;
(c) that the California Law Revision Commission has a heavy influence in the statutes and laws governing how this segment of residential deed-restricted titleholders will buy, sell, own, and rent, within the confines of common interest developments throughout this state.
Those who are aware are not quite sure that they fully understand the effects of the CLRC's wholesale rewrites.
II.
FISCAL IMPACT ON THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
California is presently cash and income strapped to the extent of at least $14.5 billion dollars in debt with proposed cuts to be made in every State Department.[1] One can only hope that one of the departments that will be faced with budget cuts will be the California Law Revision Commission.
Perhaps the reason you appear to be impetuously pushing this project through is precisely because of those budget cuts and your fear the project will be axed.
The proposed changes, i.e. "Statutory Clarification and Simplification of CID Law" are anything but "simple." They are complicated with far-reaching consequences for those who will be bound by them.
III.
GAPING LOOPHOLES AND CROSSOVERS EXIST IN THE CALIFORNIA LAW REVISION COMMISSION'S PROPOSED "STATUTORY CLARIFICATION AND SIMPLIFICATION OF CID LAW"
Coincidentally, too many of the changes the California Law Revision Commission proposes to incorporate into said text, were already posed to the California Legislature to no avail. I know this because I proposed the changes and brought those and other issues to the attention of Legislators, Legislature and the Governor. Now, as then, I was ignored. In my possession are documents and correspondence to Assemblypersons and Senators attempting to bring legal flaws inclusive of various statutory loopholes to their attention prior to passing certain provisions and amendments to sections--but went unheeded.
Still, in the hundreds of proposed pages of text generated by the California Law Revision Commission, the bad laws, including loopholes, remain.
Mr. Hebert, I know you are aware of these issues because I have written to you about them before, and you have my book, and you have seen my latest edition of Common Interest Developments--Homeowners Guide, Thomson-West, 2007-2008. What is surprising is that you and your "Commission" continue to bastardize an entire statute that could have been properly executed from the beginning but was not. Instead you and the Commission are doing what the drafters of the initial Davis-Stirling Act did: Sloppy work.
The results of sloppy work equates to bigger problems and higher costs for those purchasers of property and existing owners, than had existed prior to the wholesale rewrite you are conducting right now. It also costs the State of California money.
IV.
CLRC'S CIRCUMVENTION OF PUBLIC COMPLAINTS
In my opinion and the opinion of others, the California Law Revision Commission, whether artful or not, IS circumventing the real issues surrounding public complaints of said laws pertaining to common interest developments.
For all the pages of text you have produced, and all the rhetoric, pomp, and circumstance, save the back-patting, the approximate 300 pages of slop miserably fails to protect titleholder assets.
It fails to provide per se penalties against third-party management companies and their employees, fails to provide per se penalties against recalcitrant boards, fails to per se assist titleholders in protecting their assets, fails to provide a viable avenue of redress for the mounting problems associated with common interest developments, and homeowner associations. Every avenue the titleholder attempts to pursue for "fairness" is a costly dead-end--no thanks to you and your Commission.
The so-called pre-existing, or statutory avenues for "redress" are woefully inadequate and in theory while they may look good on paper, they are all but useless in application AND they are NOT cost effective for the owner.[2] Implementation of many sections of the Davis-Stirling Act (even with your so-called Simplification) does not address the myriad of crossover laws, existing loopholes, and language and directions are frankly, do not work in "real life."
V.
BYPASSING THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS BY USING "MADE TO ORDER" CHANGES THAT INCLUDE ALTERING SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES RESULTING IN TITLEHOLDER DISENFRANCHISEMENT
If owners knew of the dire implications of the California Law Revision Commission's so-called "substantive issues" terminology, they'd be all over your Commission like a dirty shirt. So too, if owners really understood that the fancy language you propose on paper would have a detrimental (ie, legal) effect once implemented, they'd be all over your Commission like a dirty shirt.
Subtle change? Not! For instance, the California Law Revision Commission has decided to make a SUBTLE change in words. Who would be the wiser? For example, take a look at your Section 4540. The CLRC decides to delete and cross-out just two words. The two words are: "adjourn to."
The CLRC decides to include instead, the words "meet in." Gee, doesn't sound so bad does it? Wrong!
That example of the CLRC's so-called SIMPLIFICATION is DISASTROUS to owners. It removes the "session" requirement and converts the "session" to a type of executive meeting or secret meeting that is not allowed presently under the Davis-Stirling Act. Also in that example, it appears to seriously circumvent the Open Meeting Act in a variety of ways. Because owners cannot presently attend an executive session, this change in the LAW will give boards carte blanche to meet in secret -- how would an owner EVER know that the board is meeting pursuant to LAW because it is now NOT a "session" it is a bona fide --secret-- MEETING -- just what the industry ordered from the Commission. Other problems associated with that so-called SIMPLIFICATION are equally disastrous.
One of the most contentious and complained about topics that readers to my co-authored Los Angeles Times, Associations column in the Real Estate section write about, has to do with that very topic of secret meetings, executive sessions and board meetings that are called "executive board meetings" whatever the heck THAT'S supposed to be! Other complain that advisors to boards keep informing them their association does not fall under the Davis-Stirling Act -- all because they do not want to abide by the law.
Boards have been meeting in secret regardless of the Davis-Stirling Act because they suffer no quantifiable penalties at law for doing so. Interference by third party vendors encouraging such lawbreaking actions is growing at a record pace. But precisely because they are "third party vendors" (eg, management companies) they contract directly with a board of directors and are basically unaccountable to the owners who pay their salaries. They are in a sense able to interfere to their heart's content without fear of prosecution.
Your Section 4540 is just what association industry advisors ordered, give the boards free reign.
The CLRC gives the association industry and the out-of-control-boards just what they want --- a type of "get out of jail card" -- meet in "executive session" without notice, without a duly convened meeting, any time they want and without any accountability whatsoever. And, check out the free-for-all line-up you've given the board, hell, they just hit the lottery big time. There goes accountability and openness right out the window. Why? Because of the California Law Revision's deletion of otherwise seemingly innocuous TWO WORDS.
The California Law Revision Commission's entire preposterous project titled "Statutory Clarification and Simplification of CID Law" project is laden with problems similar to that just described, only worse.
VI.
MORATORIUM ON CHANGES TO DAVIS-STIRLING ACT; NO SO-CALLED BILL OF RIGHTS NEEDED; CREATION OF VICTIM'S FUND FOR DEED-RESTRICTED OWNERS
As I have written before to you, there needs be a moratorium on changes to the Davis-Stirling Act in general.
Until the California Law Revision Commission completely expunges the word "property" from the statutes governing purchase, sale, and ownership of residential deed-restricted properties, the titleholders have a vested interest in their property.
There should be no separate, or independent "bill of rights" in the California Statutes for residential deed-restricted property owners. Instead, the US Constitution should apply and the titleholder's "rights" should be written into said statutes by way of realistic redress and penalties against associations, their third party providers and advisors, and boards of directors. The benefits of said penalties must flow directly to the affected titleholder(s).
There should also be created, a "Victims Fund" for any titleholder who is a victim of the aforementioned who break the laws.
However, to date, and even with the California Law Revision Commission recommendations, the titleholders have no per se "rights" and they have no protections.[3]
VII.
VOLUNTARY WAIVER
The California Law Revision' Commission makes reference to very dangerous combination of words: Voluntary Waiver. This must be removed (let alone clarified and defined) from the statute sections. That is dangerous for titleholders because statutorily the titleholder "voluntarily waives" certain rights on purchase. Yet, this appears to be intentionally misleading in the California Law Revision' Commission's language pertaining to its project titled: Statutory Clarification and Simplification of CID Law.
In effect, this means, that everything that is being proposed is superseded by the purchase of such "property." What layperson would understand the LEGAL implications of giving up THOSE rights by a stroke of a pen on an escrow document that they probably did not read, or if they read, did not fully comprehend?
VIII.
WARNING: "THE STAFF RECOMMENDS AGAINST THAT CHANGE"
John Wayne once said, "Who the hell are you?"
Interestingly, way too many serious and pertinent suggestions from the public are pooh-poohed by the California Law Revision Commission with the one-liner brush off comment "the staff recommends against that change." Most of your reasons for discounting such changes appear to be without justification.
A better idea would be that the California Legislature issue a warning to all residential deed-restricted owners and potential owners of the perils of such ownership that inures to the detriment of the titleholder. Just as "truth in lending" has become an issue, so too must truth in these statutory provisions be an issue in this wholesale rewrite that the public has been handicapped in controlling.
Despite extremely naive and trusting nature of most buyers and owners and despite the availability of SOME media coverage of the legal problems surrounding ownership of these properties, owners do not fully appreciate the seriousness of the situation. The California Law Revision Commission has not helped--they have instead, hurt these consumers.
Thank you for your time.
Very truly yours,
/s/
Donie Vanitzian, J.D., Arbitrator
[1] See e.g., J. Rau & E. Halper, Pain of Proposed State Budget Cuts is Widely Spread, L.A. Times, Jan. 12, 2008.
[2] Donie Vanitzian, Common Interest Developments, (Thomson-West, 2007-2008 ed).
[3] See e.g., Business and Professions Code sections 11018 et seq.
Sunday, August 12, 2007
HIRING AN ATTORNEY CAN BE HAZARDOUS TO YOUR HEALTHAugust 12, 2007
By Donie Vanitzian (View author info) Copyright Donie Vanitzian
Los Angeles, California - If California can place caps on spending and caps on fees of various types of businesses -- then it needs to put caps on lawyer fees. When attorneys make more money than brain surgeons, its time to say we've had enough.
CALIFORNIA'S "LEGAL" CLIMATE IS STORMY AS HELL!
The English dramatist, Christopher Marlowe (1564-1593), once said "Hell hath no limits, nor is circumscribed, in one self place; for where we are is Hell, and where Hell is, there must we ever be." Whether that brilliant quote was pre- or post-attorneys, we do not know. But, not to worry, there isn't an attorney in California that should be fearful their invoicing capabilities will be curtailed because attorneys have no Hell, they have in fact, a Safe Haven. That safe haven is within the California State Bar. Yes, a trade group with paying members. Yet it should surprise no one that the Hell is saved for us--the clients.
Without dressing the news up to be worse than it is, let it suffice to say it is nevertheless, extremely troubling -- especially for consumers -- and most especially to those victims of bad attorneys. Yet, it appears that the only entity on earth that doesn't realistically understand California's present legal climate is the State Bar. It is business as usual as the State Bar continues to harbor, protect, shield, cater to, and most important, "defend" its own. One thing is certain; the State Bar does not protect consumers who are clients of attorneys and who are victims of attorneys. [FN1]
The public is "raged" and their ire must not be underestimated. Many Californians are without employment or have taken pay cuts in the hope they can keep their jobs. Most worry about paying mortgages, utilities, medical bills and supporting their families. Frankly, California Legislators don't seem to give a damn about the common folk. Those Legislators have a salary and pension that you and I can only dream of and, they are on a road none of us are privileged enough to travel because we do not possess the proper type of vehicle and cannot afford the toll fees to be able to travel on that same road.
CALIFORNIA HAS BECOME A COMPLICATED STATE TO WORK, LIVE, SURVIVE
Most Californian's grew up with an unassuming belief that the law was there to protect them. Because those laws have not helped residential deed-restricted titleholders subject to homeowner associations across this state, those beliefs are "unreasonable." With the onset of homeowner associations, our lives are no longer as we once knew them to be. These groups of titleholders have all but given up on those expectations. No matter how much you paid for that view of the sea, or how many miles of unsoiled greenbelts you are free to jog upon, there is nothing enrapturing about a homeowner association -- this type of development is pure taint. The romantic dreams of owning ones own home and gaining freedom at an affordable price -- are gone. The BEST these titleholders can hope for is to locate an honest and above average attorney for an affordable price on the same day they need one.
Living and doing business in the state of California appears to have become complicated beyond all measure. California's laws are not only "thick" they are poorly written. Thanks to the California Law Revision (Revenge) Commission who have their dirty hands in just about any law that is repealed, rewritten, amended and twisted -- laws, some that have been on our books for decades and easily enforceable by laymen, have become plagued with crossovers and hidden meanings, rendering many of them useless and unenforceable by the very persons they were supposedly written to protect.
The REAL legal analysts that USED to become Legislator staff employees are no more. The NEW so-called legal analysts are usually (1) someone that the Legislator owes a favor to, or (2) some kid wet behind the ears whose mommy or daddy contributed the most bucks to the Senator or Assemblyperson's campaign and wants to pad his kid's resume. That "new" definition of "legal analyst" has denigrated every legislator's position in our government and the result is self-evident. The incompetence is unmitigated.
Those once-simple business transactions now fill volumes of statute-books containing thousands of pages of what many of us term "nonsense" but still sporting language so legal that everyday citizens have to hire an attorney to translate the statutes to them. It is no laughing matter especially when one considers that many of the attorneys we are FORCED to hire (a) don't understand a particular area of law or the statutes themselves but will represent you in spite of that minor detail, (b) may tell you its not their area of expertise but will take you as a client anyway, (c) either way, s/he doesn't have a clue man, but hey, at least they've got a Bar card! As one attorney told me a couple years ago, "For a retainer of $5,000, I can do some research for you."
Fast-forward: The attorneys that DID the research after receiving the $5,000 gave me the $5,000 result as "Inconclusive" and then proceeded to keep the retainer money. Putting the $5,000 price tag aside for a minute, understand what was REALLY lost in that transaction => A precious statute-of-limitations was ticking away in the background and dangerously close to blowing up any chance I might have had for recovery of money owed me by another person. The attorney who was taking his time doing the research obviously talked a good game, did nothing, but substantiated his billing invoice for $5,000 just in case someone turned him or her into the Bar. But, like the attorney told me later, "The Bar doesn't prosecute attorneys for an inconclusive research result."
To the readers of this article: would it make a difference if "I" had already performed the research, gave it to him and then hired the attorney to confirm my findings? Is that worth $5,000? Would you answer the question any differently if you took a research result from your prior attorney and gave it to the new $5,000 attorney and then got an answer that the research is inconclusive? Or the best answer yet: "I'm new to the case so I need to familiarize myself with the facts all over again--if I don't I'll be sued for malpractice." Oh sure. Like, I mean, when was the last time anyone heard an attorney say they were worried about being sued for malpractice? Here's my question: BY WHO? Has ANYONE ever tried to find an attorney that was willing to put their own law license on the line to SUE ANOTHER LAWYER -- A BROTHER OR SISTER LAWYER for malpractice? That's a rare breed indeed if in fact they exist. Before you believe any attorney that tells you they fear being sued for malpractice, do the research yourself. Go dig up statutes that OUTLINE EXACTLY WHAT MALPRACTICE IS -- IF IT EXISTS AT ALL. Good luck.
Hiring an attorney is tough enough, but finding one that YOU can trust and have faith in is even tougher. Sometimes, by the time you find out that the attorney you just hired is the wrong one for you, it is too late. It doesn't matter if the guy who referred you to that attorney trusted him with his life; it doesn't matter if your neighbor used that same attorney for twenty years and trusts him with her life; it doesn't matter how many awards and plaques that attorney has received or how many clients he has; it only matters if YOU trust him and for what REASONS you trust him.
LEGAL BLACKMAIL--TAKING CLIENTS HOSTAGE
There's a joke so old, who knows where it originated, it goes like this: Q: How can you tell when an attorney is lying? A. His lips are moving.
The price of blackmail has just been raised and continues to get raised some more. [FN2] You need an attorney but you can't afford one, hell you're barely making it on your meager salary as it is. Not long ago, an attorney could be hired without a retainer agreement and could also be hired by "transaction" if that was what the client needed. In those days, if you needed a letter to be written and a quote to write that letter you could get one, today it is nearly impossible to get a quote for a single letter. One lawyer told me that he was obligated to write a response -- I said no you are not obligated to write ANY response, I'm not hiring you for that, I just want ONE letter. Ten attorneys later, I could find no one to write ONE letter for me, even at $1,000 for one letter. EACH lawyer I met with wanted a MINIMUM of $5,000 retainer before writing ONE letter and said it would be malpractice if they did not reply if a correspondence was sent back because of my initial letter. That is so damn preposterous. That lawyer is worried about his malpractice to the extent he will land ME in hot water and FORCE me to bankrupt myself to pay for his malpractice insurance all because he wants to glob onto a perpetual retainer agreement payroll so he can keep me mired in letters and hopefully for him, litigation that never ends. HE -- the LAWYER does not decide to respond on my behalf => I <= DECIDE WHETHER THE LAWYER RESPONDS OR NOT ON MY BEHALF. That is what has happened to the Bar protecting their own members. The members run all over the paying public.
In days gone by, (1950 to about 1985) let's say an attorney would charge $200 to write a single letter -- that meant it was just that: $200 was $200. If the attorney had to respond to that letter after he wrote it for you, the client would receive a communication from the attorney explaining that further action is needed and what the cost of that proposed action might be. That's what would happen before he proceeded to respond. Not today!
Today, the attorneys elitist club adds their own measure of inflation to what they believe they are worth. In more than one case that I am aware of, the "$200 letter" of yesteryear has become the basis for obtaining retainers from $5,000 on up and up and up. In a conversation I had with an attorney at a cocktail party, he attempted to substantiate the thousands of dollars demanded for retainer agreements by saying, "look, once you get a paying customer, you have to keep them, the retainer agreement does that." At the same party, another attorney told me that he had huge student loans to pay back and billing clients was a way to accomplish that quickly so he could start showing a "profit."
ATTORNEY CHOICES FOR CALIFORNIA CONSUMERS ARE SPARSE TO NON-EXISTENT
Blame the State Bar for making all paying clients equivalent to walking bankbooks for anyone in the profession of law. That's a scary position to be in -- especially if you are dependent on an attorney.
By limiting the number and/or amount of attorneys that are able to practice law in the state of California consumer choices are extremely limited. The Bar controls how many attorneys can practice law in the state and by doing that, the bar be it inadvertently or intentionally, whichever the case may be, controls fees. The smaller the pool of attorneys to chose from, the higher the fees to hire an attorney become.
The lawyer's and his law firm's records are privileged. Billing is subjected and it is what the attorney tells you it is. Only the most egregious and blatant billing practices are "sometimes" exposed. The word "sometimes" is emphasized.
In one contingency case the client, an old friend of mine, said he didn't understand what "contingency" meant, all he, as the client knew, was what the attorney told him. He said the attorney said wouldn't be expecting any money from my friend until the end of the case. Never mind that the attorney was billing like there was no tomorrow, literally a runaway train. Never mind that the attorney took an out-of-the-country three-week vacation during my friend's intense litigation. Oh, don't worry, the attorney was sure to send copies of his invoices -- with his vacation postcards -- to the client -- not as a courtesy, but to cover his ass when the State Bar complaints rolled in. "See, I sent the client timely invoices all along." As for the accuracy of those attorney generated invoices, that's anybody's guess. It appears that the Bar's interest is merely in the "sending of the invoices" not the authenticity of them. Hidden somewhere in that contingency agreement that the client did not expect was a clause stating the client was responsible for the fees irrespective of the agreement being a so-called contingency. The client ended up paying the exorbitant fees, much of which was unsubstantiated because the attorney told him/her if the fees were not paid the attorney would sue and win.
ONLY IN CALIFORNIA AND IT ONLY TOOK 24 HOURS:
But perhaps this was the best one yet: Client hires a "washed up old geezer attorney" who advertises that he is a "seasoned" attorney who has argued Supreme Court and Appellate cases; so client gives him a $35,000 retainer deposit. Overnight the client learns that the sleazebag attorney he just handed his $35,000 check was by industry standards, "washed up" -- a "loser." Client learns sure he argued those cases -- but never won. In fact, the seasoned geezer had not won ANY in the last twenty years. Client drives to the other side of town to fire the geezer and get back his $35,000. In walks the sleazebag-geezer with a brand new rug on his head, just got his nails done (yuk) and sporting a brand new set of alligator shoes because he was too fat for the alligator boots. When told he was terminated and that the client was there to pick up his $35,000 check, (1) I've already begun working on your case so you won't get the full $35,000 back, (2) I don't have the check its in the bank, (3) I have to wait for the deposit to come through, another 30 days, and then it will take me another two weeks to cut you a check after I figure out what you owe me. I cannot repeat on paper what happened next--but client recovered every cent and criminal charges were not filed. Many other clients are not that lucky.
Another person tells me that she brought an Unlawful Detainer action against a tenant for harassment. It turns out that Lawyer One took retainer agreement money, and then didn't do anything. She filed a complaint with the State Bar, and at least she was able to get her retainer check back. That does not account for lost time and money expended, and lost potential income from her commercial property during and after the attorney's incompetence. The "tenant" along with the "problem," remains.
Enter Lawyer Two, who finally filed the Unlawful Detainer action. Lawyer Two, brilliant as he claimed to be, decided he knew best how to win this. Therefore, he put his entire client's eggs into one basket. Inside that basket was one police report consisting of a complaint that the tenant hit the landlord. Fast forward to "court time" and unfortunately it isn't Judge Judy where fairness is meted out with a swift bolt of lighting, this is instead, Judge California. The landlord's attorney did not mention anything from the foot-thick file documenting the tenant's ongoing and continued harassment against her. So the California Judge rendered his own special brand of California peace-and-love kinda justice, he rules, "I believe he hit you, but I don't think it was hard enough to justify me evicting him."
Now comes the lawyer's bill. It contains the name of only one of two tenants being evicted; it shows charges AGAIN of $300 for "witness appearance fees" for two police officers who did NOT appear. There were also charges for "services" on TWO days of trial, services for WHAT? Who knows? At the first day of trial, we spent sitting in the court without explanation to the client. By 4 pm the Judge said go home and we'll have the trial tomorrow.
The client keeps asking for a DETAILED invoice and doesn't get one. One of the problems in doing anything by phone with an attorney is that they deny, deny, deny.
The public is encouraged to keep filing complaints at the Bar even though it appears they protect their own.
Consumers are encouraged to file complaints against errant attorneys: http://www.calbar.ca.gov
Consumers are encouraged to contact the author with any management and manager complaints by contacting: http://www.certifymyass.com
~0~
[FN1] Author note: The terms "him" "his" "he" are used in this article as gender neutral. [FN2] Author note: This article does not include all the good things about many wonderful attorneys as that is in another article that is due to be published later on this year; look for the third part of this article to be published soon.
Thursday, March 15, 2007
THE TEMPLE OF BLAME AND LEGALIZED FRAUD DRESSED UP AS AN "ELECTION" PART II
Donie Vanitzian
Marina del Rey, CA 90295
March 15, 2007
Mr. Brian Hebert
California Law Revision Commission
3200 Fifth Avenue
Sacramento, California, 95817
THE TEMPLE OF BLAME
AND
LEGALIZED FRAUD
DRESSED UP AS AN “ELECTION”
PART II
Dear Mr. Hebert,
The Temple of Blame and Legalized Fraud Dressed Up As An “Election, Part I” erroneously referenced Senate Bill 1029. It should have referenced Senate Bill 61. I apologize for that error.
Unfortunately, there are many more problems with this code section, but they will have to wait for another time. Until then, please add the following items to my letter dated March 1, 2007 requesting repeal of Civil Code §1363.03.
Disqualification and/or Selective Invalidation
of Owner Ballots
It has been reported to me that so-called “Inspectors of Elections” for whatever reason(s) are “disqualifying” ballots based on THEIR interpretation of the law.
With nothing more than the name “inspector,” such “inspectors” are unilaterally deciding whether owner ballots are “qualified” or “disqualified.”
Number of units owned by a single titleholder: The statute does not address the issue of a single titleholder owning more than one unit. The legislature could have easily eliminated problems related to this issue, but were derelict. Presently, if the association has not adopted any rule that restricts the number of ballots to be mailed in each separate envelope, those ballots that are legitimately voted and mailed in a single envelope should not be invalidated, yet that is precisely what is occurring.
Owners of multiple units have reported to me, that their associations and/or the “inspectors” chosen to oversee such voting procedures are selectively disqualifying titleholder ballots. In one case, the so-called “Inspector of Elections” (whatever THAT’S supposed to mean) disqualified two votes of three votes cast by a titleholder who owns three units in one common interest development. That titleholder was entitled to cast—and have counted—one ballot for each unit owned irrespective of the envelope they were mailed in. Instead, the “Inspector” disqualified and discarded (destroyed) two ballots “because the inner envelope contained three ballots.” In actuality, and only for sake of argument, for the invalidation to be legal, all three votes should have been disqualified.
(a) NO ballots should have been destroyed and,
(b) Nothing in Civil Code §1363.03 prevents, nor ipso facto disqualifies, or gives any inspector of said elections the authority to disqualify, a titleholder holding title to more than one property within the same common interest development, from voting all his/her ballots at one time and placing said ballots in one envelope.
In another case, a titleholder owning more than one unit, clearly wrote his name and address and signed it (as indicated in the association’s instructions) on the outer envelope, and clearly wrote that it contained three ballots. Even though the “Inspector” checked the outer envelope against the association’s homeowner list indicating the titleholder is entitled to cast three ballots, the “Inspector” invalidated two votes of the three.
In a case where a titleholder owning two units -- voted his two ballots -- mailed them in the same envelope provided, the “inspector” invalidated both votes because only one envelope was used.
Some “inspectors” are “discarding” the ballots and others are merely “invalidating” the ballots. Civil Code §1363.03 does not define these terms nor does it discuss this situation. The code fails to address the aforementioned problems. This should have been a no-brainer to the legislature and the legislator who was responsible for sponsoring this fiasco.
Long and Incomprehensible Instructions
I am witnessing longer and longer, and yes, even longer, instruction sheets or multiple instruction sheets, accompanying voting procedures distributed to titleholders. One of the many problems with such “instructions” and the rules adopted by associations pursuant to Civil Code §1357.100 is that they are drafted by boards AND consultants or advisors who think they know what they are doing. In the interim thousands of titleholders are being disenfranchised because an advisor thought it would be a “good idea to include” [insert that good idea] in the instructions.
Apparently, those responsible for circulating ballots and/or voting materials will take it upon themselves to insert their own wording, or a sentence, or a paragraph, or what they may call a “clarifying note” into instructions that were NOT part of the language adopted by the owners and/or the board of directors let alone Civil Code §1363.03.
There are many who now believe that the taint on homeowner association elections and fairness in general, is irreparable. The industry’s influence has so corrupted the process that many of us believe it is beyond salvage. When a board of directors announces “it has passed” -- all hope is deflated by those owner who know it “didn’t pass.”
Good Standing, Bad Standing, No Standing
Just Sit Down and Shut Up!
Irrespective of the titleholders’ being in good standing at their associations or not, “inspectors” are unilaterally making the “call” whether owner ballots are “qualified” or “disqualified.”
It apparently no longer matters that the titleholder has a property right, one that vested on purchase of their property. As associations will do anything to divest owners of their property rights, this bogus nonsense written into many association documents consisting of “you are not in good standing so you cannot vote” overrides all statutes.
Open to Anyone’s nterpretation
Perhaps one of the biggest flaws with Civil Code §1363.03 is that it is open to interpretation.
Ballots created and distributed by management companies and/or other third-party vendors and forwarded to me by boards of directors and owners are evidencing a frightening trend. Management companies and other so-called “professionals” are apparently taking it upon themselves to insert their verbiage (i.e, via poetic license) into ballots.
It is also disturbing to find that there is a basic breakdown in communicating meaningful “instructions” to owners. Simple questions, like this one addressed to me from a reader, “HOW do those of us who did not vote by ballot, cast a vote at the annual election by attendance?” One owner forwarded seventeen letters asking that same question to her board over two months time. At the time of this writing, the question was still unanswered.
Creating unilateral contingencies in the balloting process: Too many ballots are wrongfully inserting, then publishing, contingencies into the voting process where no such “contingency” exists in the law and no such contingency exists in the association’s governing documents, or the “rules” adopted by the board. One such ballot that was irresponsibly created by a management company states “you must first check with the person to make sure they want to run for the board.”[1] Such an admonition of “acceptance” is not a statutory requirement, thus that statement functions as an “admonition” which in turn results in the “addition” of a “contingency” into the voting procedure and invalidates the election, let alone the ballot.[2] Another management company took it upon themselves to write on the face of the ballot:
“Write-in candidates, ie, candidates written on the ballots after they are distributed by the Association and nominations from the floor, are discouraged as they do not afford such candidates the same opportunity as those candidates whose names are pre-printed on the ballot, and it complicates the election process at the time of the meeting.”
Aside from the vendor’s arrogance in believing they can simply write what they want, that hyperbole confuses voters and could arguably subject the association to liability. It invalidates the election because it functions as an “admonition” which in turn results in the “addition” of a “contingency” in the balloting process. [3] Incompetent “opinions” injected into the balloting process by third-party vendors contracted by the association NOT to practice law but to provide a “service” in exchange for remuneration invalidates the election process. This interference is costly to the association and subjects the owners to insufferable preaching by paid employees[4] who have nothing to do with protecting the owners’ assets.
Mailed ballot invalidated and superseded by yet another mailing; and another mailing after that
Another problem occurs when ballots that were already circulated, voted, returned to the inspector, and waiting to be counted -- yet just prior to counting those ballots -- all ballots are invalidated.
The statute does not address this problem. In several instances that I have recently been made aware of, the management company or board of directors refused to return the invalidated ballots and it is unclear if those ballots were discarded, and if they were discarded, how so? There are variations on this theme, too lengthy for discussion in this forum, but in need of clear and unequivocal direction by the legislature. If the advisor, management company, or other third-party vendor contracting with the association is the recipient of the returned ballots, those ballots (as it was relayed to me) those entities are keeping, or holding onto those “invalidated” ballots.
Adding candidates
This is another problem that is growing in intensity. In the event the first mailing of ballots was invalid, and a second ballot mailing is necessary to correct an error, I have received communications from dozens of owners showing that advisors, management companies, or other third-party vendors contracting with the association, have taken it upon themselves to add candidate names to a new or corrected-ballot without giving prior notice to all titleholders that there was an extension of time allotted (ie, “created” due to the initial balloting error) to nominate and/or include one’s name on the ballot. Situations like this disenfranchise all owners and those who would have added their name as a candidate had they known that the time had been extended to place a candidate’s name on the ballot. [5]
Envelopes[6]
Without elaborating further, I have received hundreds of complaints and examples regarding the “double envelope” process, the quality or lack there of, regarding said envelopes. The complaints range from mailing-related problems to ballot invalidations as they relate to the envelopes provided by the association or other third-party vendor entity.
In one ballot enclosure executed by a vendor management company employee purporting to some sort of Vice President, the instructions state, “Any unsigned outer envelope will not be counted as it cannot be validated.”
That fabricated statement is deceitful, it is not the law, and without a published “validation” policy, it unilaterally disenfranchises the titleholder.[7] The statute does not state that, nor does it allude to that type of unilateral disqualification, or invalidation. In my discussions with Senator Battin’s office I was told that is not a true statement, the ballot will NOT be invalidated.
Signatures, privacy, identity theft:
Too many ballots are being invalidated or disqualified based on the owner’s “signature.” There are no guidelines in the statute that detail how “signature invalidation” is to occur, and under what circumstances it should occur, if it should occur at all. Owners report that their ballots are being invalidated for no other reason than “someone” said their signature was “suspect.” Yet, the person or entity invalidating ballots using the excuse of “suspect signatures” had nothing to compare the owners’ signatures to.
For obvious reasons, NO TITLEHOLDER wants their signature to be housed at a management company office -- let alone there are no assurances of privacy from such companies. Stockpiling signatures at a third-party vendor’s office where there is, among other things, no control over employees, access to documents, safeguarding of property, are unacceptable.
Predictably, this will mean that each titleholder must notarize their ballot prior to mailing it in. Without notarized ballots, its anyone’s guess whose signature it is.
Incompetence and interference: Third-party vendors are likely costing associations more than they bargained for. For example, in one ballot enclosure executed by a management company executive it states:
“Return the double sealed ballot to the Inspector of Elections by xx/xx/07.”
That statement is false and cannot be complied with for these reasons:
(1) there is NO double sealed BALLOT. The ballot itself cannot be sealed; and
(2) on its face, the aforementioned statement gives ALL titleholders until MIDNIGHT on xx/xx/07 to return their ballots and/or to vote, thus contradicting the governing documents AND what was written in the other enclosures mailed with the ballot that stated the ballots are counted in the open at the annual meeting, and results are announced at that time.
Misrepresentations: Some third-party vendors, including management companies, advisors, consultants, and the like, have injected there own sayings onto the face of the ballots, and/or in accompanying materials that invalidate the election process. One such saying is as follows:
“A quorum of members must return ballots in order for the election to be valid.” [8]
That statement alone invalidates the entire election because:
(a) for a variety of reasons too length for this discussion, it creates a “contingency” for the owner’s “vote”;
(b) assuming arguendo that the statement is accurate, it fails to state the quorum “number” required for the election to be “valid”;
(c) it places an (additional) “instruction” on the document which should not be there without a vote and direction of the board;
(d) that statement (in this instance) “contradicted” other enclosures published by the management company vendor and/or board of directors that accompanied the ballot itself;
(e) it “assumes/presupposes” that the owner cannot or will not utilize a proxy or send a representative in to vote;
(f) the statement predicates a “valid election” on a quorum of returned ballots. This may not be the case in every association. This also does not account for attendance at the meeting for quorum purposes, it does not account for votes and nominations from the floor and in-person voting at the time of said election and/or annual meeting; (this assumes that the annual meeting is also THE meeting where the election of officers will occur), it misstates the facts;
(g) if the ballot does not state on its face, that “this ballot will be used to establish a quorum,” then that statement cannot be made.[9]
Let’s keep recounting until we get the result we want:
Some owners have reported influence from outside entities encouraging if not demanding that the boards recount ballots. Some have reported recounting ballots over three times. Each time the result narrows and by invalidating certain ballots, the slate, or existing board members can keep their seats. In each instance, the competition was eliminated. Coincidence? You decide.
Again, no matter how its sliced, Civil Code §1363.03, in its present form it is incomprehensible and nearly, if not wholly, impossible to comply with in toto.
Very truly yours,
D. Vanitzian
[1] Vanitzian, California Common Interest Developments-Homeowners Guide (Thomson/West 2007).
[2] Vanitzian, California Common Interest Developments-Homeowners Guide (Thomson/West 2007).
[3] Vanitzian, California Common Interest Developments-Homeowners Guide (Thomson/West 2007).
[4] Vanitzian, California Common Interest Developments-Homeowners Guide (Thomson/West 2007).
[5] Vanitzian, California Common Interest Developments-Homeowners Guide (Thomson/West 2007).
[6] Vanitzian, California Common Interest Developments-Homeowners Guide (Thomson/West 2007).
[7] Vanitzian, California Common Interest Developments-Homeowners Guide (Thomson/West 2007).
[8] Vanitzian, California Common Interest Developments-Homeowners Guide (Thomson/West 2007).
[9] Vanitzian, California Common Interest Developments-Homeowners Guide (Thomson/West 2007).
Marina del Rey, CA 90295
March 15, 2007
Mr. Brian Hebert
California Law Revision Commission
3200 Fifth Avenue
Sacramento, California, 95817
THE TEMPLE OF BLAME
AND
LEGALIZED FRAUD
DRESSED UP AS AN “ELECTION”
PART II
Dear Mr. Hebert,
The Temple of Blame and Legalized Fraud Dressed Up As An “Election, Part I” erroneously referenced Senate Bill 1029. It should have referenced Senate Bill 61. I apologize for that error.
Unfortunately, there are many more problems with this code section, but they will have to wait for another time. Until then, please add the following items to my letter dated March 1, 2007 requesting repeal of Civil Code §1363.03.
Disqualification and/or Selective Invalidation
of Owner Ballots
It has been reported to me that so-called “Inspectors of Elections” for whatever reason(s) are “disqualifying” ballots based on THEIR interpretation of the law.
With nothing more than the name “inspector,” such “inspectors” are unilaterally deciding whether owner ballots are “qualified” or “disqualified.”
Number of units owned by a single titleholder: The statute does not address the issue of a single titleholder owning more than one unit. The legislature could have easily eliminated problems related to this issue, but were derelict. Presently, if the association has not adopted any rule that restricts the number of ballots to be mailed in each separate envelope, those ballots that are legitimately voted and mailed in a single envelope should not be invalidated, yet that is precisely what is occurring.
Owners of multiple units have reported to me, that their associations and/or the “inspectors” chosen to oversee such voting procedures are selectively disqualifying titleholder ballots. In one case, the so-called “Inspector of Elections” (whatever THAT’S supposed to mean) disqualified two votes of three votes cast by a titleholder who owns three units in one common interest development. That titleholder was entitled to cast—and have counted—one ballot for each unit owned irrespective of the envelope they were mailed in. Instead, the “Inspector” disqualified and discarded (destroyed) two ballots “because the inner envelope contained three ballots.” In actuality, and only for sake of argument, for the invalidation to be legal, all three votes should have been disqualified.
(a) NO ballots should have been destroyed and,
(b) Nothing in Civil Code §1363.03 prevents, nor ipso facto disqualifies, or gives any inspector of said elections the authority to disqualify, a titleholder holding title to more than one property within the same common interest development, from voting all his/her ballots at one time and placing said ballots in one envelope.
In another case, a titleholder owning more than one unit, clearly wrote his name and address and signed it (as indicated in the association’s instructions) on the outer envelope, and clearly wrote that it contained three ballots. Even though the “Inspector” checked the outer envelope against the association’s homeowner list indicating the titleholder is entitled to cast three ballots, the “Inspector” invalidated two votes of the three.
In a case where a titleholder owning two units -- voted his two ballots -- mailed them in the same envelope provided, the “inspector” invalidated both votes because only one envelope was used.
Some “inspectors” are “discarding” the ballots and others are merely “invalidating” the ballots. Civil Code §1363.03 does not define these terms nor does it discuss this situation. The code fails to address the aforementioned problems. This should have been a no-brainer to the legislature and the legislator who was responsible for sponsoring this fiasco.
Long and Incomprehensible Instructions
I am witnessing longer and longer, and yes, even longer, instruction sheets or multiple instruction sheets, accompanying voting procedures distributed to titleholders. One of the many problems with such “instructions” and the rules adopted by associations pursuant to Civil Code §1357.100 is that they are drafted by boards AND consultants or advisors who think they know what they are doing. In the interim thousands of titleholders are being disenfranchised because an advisor thought it would be a “good idea to include” [insert that good idea] in the instructions.
Apparently, those responsible for circulating ballots and/or voting materials will take it upon themselves to insert their own wording, or a sentence, or a paragraph, or what they may call a “clarifying note” into instructions that were NOT part of the language adopted by the owners and/or the board of directors let alone Civil Code §1363.03.
There are many who now believe that the taint on homeowner association elections and fairness in general, is irreparable. The industry’s influence has so corrupted the process that many of us believe it is beyond salvage. When a board of directors announces “it has passed” -- all hope is deflated by those owner who know it “didn’t pass.”
Good Standing, Bad Standing, No Standing
Just Sit Down and Shut Up!
Irrespective of the titleholders’ being in good standing at their associations or not, “inspectors” are unilaterally making the “call” whether owner ballots are “qualified” or “disqualified.”
It apparently no longer matters that the titleholder has a property right, one that vested on purchase of their property. As associations will do anything to divest owners of their property rights, this bogus nonsense written into many association documents consisting of “you are not in good standing so you cannot vote” overrides all statutes.
Open to Anyone’s nterpretation
Perhaps one of the biggest flaws with Civil Code §1363.03 is that it is open to interpretation.
Ballots created and distributed by management companies and/or other third-party vendors and forwarded to me by boards of directors and owners are evidencing a frightening trend. Management companies and other so-called “professionals” are apparently taking it upon themselves to insert their verbiage (i.e, via poetic license) into ballots.
It is also disturbing to find that there is a basic breakdown in communicating meaningful “instructions” to owners. Simple questions, like this one addressed to me from a reader, “HOW do those of us who did not vote by ballot, cast a vote at the annual election by attendance?” One owner forwarded seventeen letters asking that same question to her board over two months time. At the time of this writing, the question was still unanswered.
Creating unilateral contingencies in the balloting process: Too many ballots are wrongfully inserting, then publishing, contingencies into the voting process where no such “contingency” exists in the law and no such contingency exists in the association’s governing documents, or the “rules” adopted by the board. One such ballot that was irresponsibly created by a management company states “you must first check with the person to make sure they want to run for the board.”[1] Such an admonition of “acceptance” is not a statutory requirement, thus that statement functions as an “admonition” which in turn results in the “addition” of a “contingency” into the voting procedure and invalidates the election, let alone the ballot.[2] Another management company took it upon themselves to write on the face of the ballot:
“Write-in candidates, ie, candidates written on the ballots after they are distributed by the Association and nominations from the floor, are discouraged as they do not afford such candidates the same opportunity as those candidates whose names are pre-printed on the ballot, and it complicates the election process at the time of the meeting.”
Aside from the vendor’s arrogance in believing they can simply write what they want, that hyperbole confuses voters and could arguably subject the association to liability. It invalidates the election because it functions as an “admonition” which in turn results in the “addition” of a “contingency” in the balloting process. [3] Incompetent “opinions” injected into the balloting process by third-party vendors contracted by the association NOT to practice law but to provide a “service” in exchange for remuneration invalidates the election process. This interference is costly to the association and subjects the owners to insufferable preaching by paid employees[4] who have nothing to do with protecting the owners’ assets.
Mailed ballot invalidated and superseded by yet another mailing; and another mailing after that
Another problem occurs when ballots that were already circulated, voted, returned to the inspector, and waiting to be counted -- yet just prior to counting those ballots -- all ballots are invalidated.
The statute does not address this problem. In several instances that I have recently been made aware of, the management company or board of directors refused to return the invalidated ballots and it is unclear if those ballots were discarded, and if they were discarded, how so? There are variations on this theme, too lengthy for discussion in this forum, but in need of clear and unequivocal direction by the legislature. If the advisor, management company, or other third-party vendor contracting with the association is the recipient of the returned ballots, those ballots (as it was relayed to me) those entities are keeping, or holding onto those “invalidated” ballots.
Adding candidates
This is another problem that is growing in intensity. In the event the first mailing of ballots was invalid, and a second ballot mailing is necessary to correct an error, I have received communications from dozens of owners showing that advisors, management companies, or other third-party vendors contracting with the association, have taken it upon themselves to add candidate names to a new or corrected-ballot without giving prior notice to all titleholders that there was an extension of time allotted (ie, “created” due to the initial balloting error) to nominate and/or include one’s name on the ballot. Situations like this disenfranchise all owners and those who would have added their name as a candidate had they known that the time had been extended to place a candidate’s name on the ballot. [5]
Envelopes[6]
Without elaborating further, I have received hundreds of complaints and examples regarding the “double envelope” process, the quality or lack there of, regarding said envelopes. The complaints range from mailing-related problems to ballot invalidations as they relate to the envelopes provided by the association or other third-party vendor entity.
In one ballot enclosure executed by a vendor management company employee purporting to some sort of Vice President, the instructions state, “Any unsigned outer envelope will not be counted as it cannot be validated.”
That fabricated statement is deceitful, it is not the law, and without a published “validation” policy, it unilaterally disenfranchises the titleholder.[7] The statute does not state that, nor does it allude to that type of unilateral disqualification, or invalidation. In my discussions with Senator Battin’s office I was told that is not a true statement, the ballot will NOT be invalidated.
Signatures, privacy, identity theft:
Too many ballots are being invalidated or disqualified based on the owner’s “signature.” There are no guidelines in the statute that detail how “signature invalidation” is to occur, and under what circumstances it should occur, if it should occur at all. Owners report that their ballots are being invalidated for no other reason than “someone” said their signature was “suspect.” Yet, the person or entity invalidating ballots using the excuse of “suspect signatures” had nothing to compare the owners’ signatures to.
For obvious reasons, NO TITLEHOLDER wants their signature to be housed at a management company office -- let alone there are no assurances of privacy from such companies. Stockpiling signatures at a third-party vendor’s office where there is, among other things, no control over employees, access to documents, safeguarding of property, are unacceptable.
Predictably, this will mean that each titleholder must notarize their ballot prior to mailing it in. Without notarized ballots, its anyone’s guess whose signature it is.
Incompetence and interference: Third-party vendors are likely costing associations more than they bargained for. For example, in one ballot enclosure executed by a management company executive it states:
“Return the double sealed ballot to the Inspector of Elections by xx/xx/07.”
That statement is false and cannot be complied with for these reasons:
(1) there is NO double sealed BALLOT. The ballot itself cannot be sealed; and
(2) on its face, the aforementioned statement gives ALL titleholders until MIDNIGHT on xx/xx/07 to return their ballots and/or to vote, thus contradicting the governing documents AND what was written in the other enclosures mailed with the ballot that stated the ballots are counted in the open at the annual meeting, and results are announced at that time.
Misrepresentations: Some third-party vendors, including management companies, advisors, consultants, and the like, have injected there own sayings onto the face of the ballots, and/or in accompanying materials that invalidate the election process. One such saying is as follows:
“A quorum of members must return ballots in order for the election to be valid.” [8]
That statement alone invalidates the entire election because:
(a) for a variety of reasons too length for this discussion, it creates a “contingency” for the owner’s “vote”;
(b) assuming arguendo that the statement is accurate, it fails to state the quorum “number” required for the election to be “valid”;
(c) it places an (additional) “instruction” on the document which should not be there without a vote and direction of the board;
(d) that statement (in this instance) “contradicted” other enclosures published by the management company vendor and/or board of directors that accompanied the ballot itself;
(e) it “assumes/presupposes” that the owner cannot or will not utilize a proxy or send a representative in to vote;
(f) the statement predicates a “valid election” on a quorum of returned ballots. This may not be the case in every association. This also does not account for attendance at the meeting for quorum purposes, it does not account for votes and nominations from the floor and in-person voting at the time of said election and/or annual meeting; (this assumes that the annual meeting is also THE meeting where the election of officers will occur), it misstates the facts;
(g) if the ballot does not state on its face, that “this ballot will be used to establish a quorum,” then that statement cannot be made.[9]
Let’s keep recounting until we get the result we want:
Some owners have reported influence from outside entities encouraging if not demanding that the boards recount ballots. Some have reported recounting ballots over three times. Each time the result narrows and by invalidating certain ballots, the slate, or existing board members can keep their seats. In each instance, the competition was eliminated. Coincidence? You decide.
Again, no matter how its sliced, Civil Code §1363.03, in its present form it is incomprehensible and nearly, if not wholly, impossible to comply with in toto.
Very truly yours,
D. Vanitzian
[1] Vanitzian, California Common Interest Developments-Homeowners Guide (Thomson/West 2007).
[2] Vanitzian, California Common Interest Developments-Homeowners Guide (Thomson/West 2007).
[3] Vanitzian, California Common Interest Developments-Homeowners Guide (Thomson/West 2007).
[4] Vanitzian, California Common Interest Developments-Homeowners Guide (Thomson/West 2007).
[5] Vanitzian, California Common Interest Developments-Homeowners Guide (Thomson/West 2007).
[6] Vanitzian, California Common Interest Developments-Homeowners Guide (Thomson/West 2007).
[7] Vanitzian, California Common Interest Developments-Homeowners Guide (Thomson/West 2007).
[8] Vanitzian, California Common Interest Developments-Homeowners Guide (Thomson/West 2007).
[9] Vanitzian, California Common Interest Developments-Homeowners Guide (Thomson/West 2007).
Thursday, June 29, 2006
BUYER BEWARE, PART III: THE ILLUSION OF “PROPERTY” OWNERSHIP
BUYER BEWARE, PART III: THE ILLUSION OF “PROPERTY” OWNERSHIP
Donie Vanitzian, BA, JD, Arbitrator
(c)2006
What’s wrong with buying a condo? Almost everything. Most people who think they are getting a good deal, have no idea what the meaning of a “good deal” is. It is not enough to say that the building looks good, or that the lawn is cut and the flowers are in bloom. Buyers must look beyond the facade.
This type of living environment requires the
Donie Vanitzian, BA, JD, Arbitrator
(c)2006
What’s wrong with buying a condo? Almost everything. Most people who think they are getting a good deal, have no idea what the meaning of a “good deal” is. It is not enough to say that the building looks good, or that the lawn is cut and the flowers are in bloom. Buyers must look beyond the facade.
This type of living environment requires the
Sunday, June 11, 2006
Welcome to Conformityville!
Welcome to Conformityville!
Constraint * Conflict * Control
Conceit * Controversy * Corruption
by Donie Vanitzian, BA, JD
(c) 2006 Vanitzian
Its been about three years since Villa Appalling! invited and welcomed millions of residents into its community and congratulated them for buying into its ass-o-see-a-tion. A big thank you was also extended for putting your money in the ass-o-see-a-tion's hands, and buyers were also reminded to be good neighbors. The criteria for being a good neighbor, is soooooooo simple, all you have to do is follow the rules: 1. Give us your money. 2. Don't ask questions. 3. Don't run for election to the board. 4. Don't come to meetings but give us your proxies and ballots. 5. Don't make waves. 6. Understand that we sue first and ask questions later. 7. Don't sue us, but we can sue you, and you will pay for it. 8. If you don't pay, we will foreclose on your home. Finally, always remember that we can make your life miserable -- other than that, Villa Appalling! Welcomes you.
If you think THAT'S bad, you haven't heard the worst of it.
CONSTRAINT!
Though there is NO per se "homeowner association" law, many attorneys profess to be expert in just that: "homeowner association law." The law should be "the law" -- period, no exceptions for individual groups or sideshows. If a person owns "real" property, then property law should be applied fairly to all, but it is not.
The proof of two legal systems is easily seen through a type of quasi-property ownership, a hybrid of sorts consisting of a contrived corporate fiction whose liabilities are shared amongst owners. It is against this backdrop, that certain property OWNERS have been lured into and made to conform to nefarious "industry standards" that are backdoored to our legislators. These so-called "standards" prevent this group of owners from effectively protecting their individual assets once they purchase "property" in a common interest development.
When making arguments against those who champion the owners' individual rights to protect their assets one of the most prevalent terms utilized by the "industry" is "homeowner advocate." Their use of this phrase is nothing more than a "label," it is an oxymoron and it is meaningless. Who would want to be a "homeowner advocate" for this bastardized hybrid type of living arrangement under the umbrella of a fictional corporate business shell. Who would advocate or promote such a disastrous concept?
As one author writes, soon, legislation will "shift the balance of power in homeowners associations away from the board of directors and in favor of the property owners." Presently, this cannot happen in California because it would entail recognition of the full bundle of sticks by way of "property rights" for those owners who by statute have inferior titles. The "industry's" relationship to a homeowners association consists only of an at-will contract to provide services and nothing more. It is the titleholder that has a VESTED INTEREST IN PROPERTY -- THE "INDUSTRY" HAS NO SUCH INTEREST WHATSOEVER!
Using the bundle-of-sticks metaphor, the bundle represents the owner's entire interest in property and each stick within the bundle represents a particular right held by the owner of that bundle. Owners, whose titles are clouded by deed-restrictions that forever change at the whim of any given board in power at the time, have experienced a taking of substantial property rights. Every time these deed-restrictions are amended, rewritten, or restated, the titleholder is usually denied rights that vested on purchase of their property. With each change or fluctuation in recorded or unrecorded restrictions and rules, the association "takes" from these owners a significant stick in the bundle of sticks that together constitute ownership of real property, thus denying them due process of law. Each stolen "stick" further denies that owner of yet another economically productive use of his property. Yet because the association it is not a governmental entity that is taking that property or property right, there is no compensation due the owner. Owners are left to their own devices to recoup or absorb their losses.
Deed-restricted ownership is a "risk" and it is "inferior" to all other types of real property ownership. One may have title to their property, pay taxes, and be with or without mortgage debt, but that does not mean you completely "own" that property in total. In such developments, the titleholder's asset basically consists of nothing more than the "inside space" of their home and in limited cases the outside structure, otherwise he or she virtually owns nothing outright because the actual ownership consists of a "fractional interest in common" with many others, and nothing more. In other words, one owns LIABILITIES-IN-COMMON with other fractional-interest owners. That's it. Whether it be a condominium, townhouse, single-family dwelling standing alone with no neighbors: If it is in a common interest development, has a homeowners association, has a board of directors, then that buyer's title is deed-restricted and inferior to all other types of REAL property ownership in the state.
Once the buyer understands that his purchase is "inferior" and his title is "restricted" maybe he will then understand that he does not own a "home" or "real property" in the traditional sense. When he fights to protect the rights he does not have, he will also uncover that he is NOT a true advocate for "home-ownership" therefore, he cannot be a "homeowner advocate" in the strict sense of the word. The best he can do, is attempt to protect his "asset" - whatever that is.
Because control is in the hands of an association's board of directors, the titleholder's control of his asset is "severely limited," and he can never own the land on which that structure (house) sits. Even if all the structures are damaged or destroyed (as in the Northridge earthquake) he still cannot escape assessment payments or his share of liability because a common interest development exists in "perpetuity" (forever) and, California courts have ruled such property cannot go bankrupt because each and every owner is mandated to pay unlimited assessments at any time. These owners are forced to pay to keep the association solvent.
CONFLICT!
Boo, hoo, hoo. While the "industry" continues to whine about their difficulty in squeezing more money from owners, but continue to deny their interloper status, they do however, manage to inject themselves into the bank accounts of millions of Villa Appalling! residents and attempt to goad them into spending even MORE money to support third-party advertisements, lobbies, and surveys.
The "industry's" insecurity can be seen through its self-obsession in defining itself through politically correct terminology connoting "fairness," "professionalism," "hard working," and "careers in serving communities." Oddly enough, none of those words are per se definable, they are instead, nebulous creations of these interlopers who have perfected if not legalized, an artful type of hard-to-detect thievery that goes unpunished year after year, decade after decade. Clinging to income projections geared for years to come, the interloper's "dedication" is that of a sociopathic parasite petrified that its host will starve it to death at any time.
Picture the industry interloper as a conglomerate enterprise dedicated to the usurping of power from the owners who rightfully own it, and placing them in a vulnerable position which prevents them from protecting their assets in a meaningful way without interference from an association, board of directors, management company, and attorneys. In espousing their self-declared dedication in putting the interests of the association-fiction in a primary position, the industry relegates titleholders who are responsible for bankrolling the operation, to a subordinate roll. The reason for this is that the association-fiction can demand "unlimited" funds at any time from all titleholders which in turn can further line "industry" pockets. Still, these interlopers serving "communities" deny their involvement in devaluing property and eroding rights.
Only when faced with the truth and starved of financial resources, and with the future of the "industry" at risk, does the interloper go on the defensive by reverting to the banal platitude that "criticism is healthy for any industry that takes itself seriously," all the while planning their next assault against the rights of titleholders.
CONTROL!
Owners must understand that they have lost control of their assets, that is, if they ever had control to begin with.
The "industry's" adeptness lies in creating confusion among buyers and owners. An example of this can be seen in California where several industry factions, in order to legitimize their standing, lobbied vigorously to pass a certified common interest managers bill. They really wanted that 'certification' and they got it. The problem? They obviously didn't think it would be so difficult to comply with, so it got watered down, and then watered down again, and now take a look at that ill-crafted bill and what one has to do to be "certifiable." Does a management company owner need to comply? Is there a requirement that such managers have a high school diploma? What about a mandatory bond and investigative background searches on managers? Go look at the statute.
Associations and industries that control them, wield unbridled power over owners and while there is an illusion of "choice" and "freedom" in residential deed-restricted environments, those basic constitutional rights are at risk of forfeiture once the purchase is made. Associations can dominate your lifestyle, control resales, interfere with your livelihood, and curtail your activities. Not only does the owner have to deal with a board of directors and association rules, but also other interlopers such as management companies and industry lawyers who further complicate the titleholder's ability to cope with complexities inherent in this scheme.
Just because you can afford to move "in" does not mean you can afford to "stay" or that you can afford to move "out." Most buyers are not advised that they must have a steadily increasing income to keep up with escalating arbitrary costs and trumped up fees when purchasing or refinancing. Owners who cannot afford to pay their association's demands for any increased fees and assessments, that can cost thousands of dollars per owner, cannot stay. Make no mistake: all the cash capital in the association's bank accounts is generated from each owner.
Certified Personal Financial Planner and Real Estate Broker, Thomas Foster, explains, "Once the deception of association-type living is uncovered, the obvious next move is to immediately cut your losses and get out of there. It is only then, that owners discover the trap they're in. Moving from a deed-restricted property to one without restrictions of similar size and location may at first appear to be a 'like-for-like exchange' however, when it comes to pricing that's where the similarity ends. The fact remains that unrestricted property is much more valuable than it's restricted counterpart."
The big question for owners who bought into this "affordable living fraud" is; can they afford the extra cost and higher property taxes to break out of the trap? Owners brag, "My home has appreciated hundreds of thousands of dollars." That elation is short-lived. Mr. Foster explains "that appreciation is somewhat irrelevant if it is not enough for you to make a like-for-like exchange in real time. Compared to other 'real' real estate, your deed-restricted title is immediately devalued because you are unable to move into a comparable 'freehold house' for the same money in the same area. When defining appreciation, the owner must subtract all assessment payments made during ownership to see the real picture."
The industry's control over owners in this environment is evidenced through the owners being burdened with a double financial risk because they essentially relinquish control of their assets to an elected board of directors. Mr. Foster cautions, "The owner's financial crisis differs substantially from the association's financial crisis. An association always has 'cash requirements,' and by law it can raise cash on demand from each owner. Even with this ability, these communities can remain in a constant flux of not being able to meet their liabilities. This means that a 'gain' for the association results in a corresponding 'loss' for each owner, subjecting seniors in particular to potential personal financial distress."
CONCEIT!
The real "community" consists of owners financing "industry employees." Bankers, attorneys, gardeners, landscape companies, management companies, lobbyists, attorneys, painters, roofers, plumbers, are ALL PAID VENDORS feeding off the carcasses of owners. Titleholders are merely the goose that lays the golden egg or the cash cow.
In order to provide the resources to pay for the excesses of those controlling the industry, such as their child's tuition to Harvard, Princeton, Yale, or other private schools, the second Mercedes, birthday parties, fur coats, jewelry, vacations in the Caribbean, ski trips, purchase of private "real" properties, or time-shares in Mammoth, Colorado, Florida, Palm Springs, yachts, five-star dining excursions, mountaineering tutors, personal trainers, fine clothing, funding personal pension plans and health insurance, owners merely have to work harder, take second jobs or simply deplete their equity to bankroll the industry's insatiable appetite.
Frequently, mutual ties between the management company and boards of directors can be cemented by the exchange of cheap trinkets such as glass vases filled with mints, bouquets of flowers with thank-you notes containing pre-paid dinners at a local restaurant or theatre tickets and occasional boxes of chocolates. As the stakes get raised, more substantial gifts come into play such as vacations, airplane tickets, trips, cruises, garage doors, and SO much more. The author of this article was offered a three-week first-class luxury cruise in exchange for hiring a particular management company. Needless to say, the offer was rejected.
CONTROVERSY!
The "industry" blames its continued demise on "hate." Not their "incompetence" or their "greed," or their "dishonesty," but, "hate." Refusing to take responsibility for its actions, this is an industry that has all but demolished the concept of "affordable housing" as it was once known and caused countless sections of law to be repealed or written to better favor vendor-interlopers; prevented owners from suing their associations to vindicate their rights; forced arbitration down our throats; caused monthly fees to go up by mandating association registration with the Secretary of State and other agencies; created monopolies where none existed before; eliminated a variety of choices for owners; file amicus briefs against owners who are struggling to hold their own in a court of law; and silencing voices of opposition.
In an excellent retort by Mr. George Staropoli, titled, “Community Associations Institute Reinvents Democracy, a Response to CAI/CEO criticism of Homeowner Advocates" he succinctly posits these queries: "Is it reasonable to oppose restoration of the homestead exemption? Or reasonable to oppose due process protections by independent tribunals? Or reasonable to seek draconian foreclosure measures against homeowners that amount to excessive punishments and a constitutional violation of the 8th Amendment. No, it's only reasonable if your objective is the perpetuating a defective, authoritarian, un-American form of governance throughout the land."
When the "industry" wants to continue its stranglehold over owners, it is considered to be "for the good of the association." When an owner attempts to protect his assets, he is considered to be "hateful," "petty," and "vindictive."
Make no mistake, the concept of a homeowners association is a sociological and economical disaster. It is a failure perpetuated by myths created and sustained by an industry that is fearful it's free ride on the backs of our personal income, will cease.
CORRUPTION!
Corruption in homeowner associations is expensive, unchecked, and rampant. In theory vendors pretend they are there to alleviate time constraints and take the burden off a volunteer board. But, because it has become so lucrative, they instead create moneymaking opportunities for themselves.
The "industry" interlopers who have supposedly made careers of "serving" so-called "communities" add to the various types of interference associations face today. These unmitigated influences, which trickle down upon owners across the country are costing countless millions of dollars in poor decisions made by boards under the spell of outside vendor perks.
Sabotaging homeowners -- Keep this story depicting an anatomy of corruption in mind the next time your home is headed for a holiday season foreclosure. It is December and association management companies are ratcheting up their holiday spirit by screwing over a few extra homeowners. In the following instance, the owner first learns purely by chance that he has a lien on his property and is in danger of foreclosure. He immediately contacts the board only to be referred to the management company who in turn informs him that a "notice," "copy of a bill of what he owed," and "several letters informing him of the situation had been sent to him." None of which had been actually received by the owner. Despite his protests, he was told it was "out of the association's hands" and "it's with a foreclosure company" and now he "has to deal with the attorneys." When attempting to contact the attorneys all he was given was a post office box and an answering service telephone number with a recording saying that the office was closed for the December holidays and would reopen sometime in January next year. As it was too late to get the payment to a post office box in order to save his property he tracked down the foreclosure company. Just imagine how difficult that is to accomplish particularly during this time of year! He showed up just in the nick of time only to be told by a receptionist, "how the hell did you find us?" Then the owner was told, that the receptionist was instructed NOT to accept any payments from owners and that the boss was on a ski trip out of the country and that the office was "technically closed." The owner said, "Too damn bad!" and with that, threw his payment on the desk and left. Fortunately the owner had the foresight to be accompanied by a credible witness and because of this the company could not deny receiving payment. He avoided foreclosure. Happy Holidays.
Though some may believe that California's legislature is headed in a direction away from its past bad decisions and leaning toward the views of property owners, we are reminded that the Devil's Dictionary defines the word "lawyer" as "One skilled in circumvention of the law."
~*~
Constraint * Conflict * Control
Conceit * Controversy * Corruption
by Donie Vanitzian, BA, JD
(c) 2006 Vanitzian
Its been about three years since Villa Appalling! invited and welcomed millions of residents into its community and congratulated them for buying into its ass-o-see-a-tion. A big thank you was also extended for putting your money in the ass-o-see-a-tion's hands, and buyers were also reminded to be good neighbors. The criteria for being a good neighbor, is soooooooo simple, all you have to do is follow the rules: 1. Give us your money. 2. Don't ask questions. 3. Don't run for election to the board. 4. Don't come to meetings but give us your proxies and ballots. 5. Don't make waves. 6. Understand that we sue first and ask questions later. 7. Don't sue us, but we can sue you, and you will pay for it. 8. If you don't pay, we will foreclose on your home. Finally, always remember that we can make your life miserable -- other than that, Villa Appalling! Welcomes you.
If you think THAT'S bad, you haven't heard the worst of it.
CONSTRAINT!
Though there is NO per se "homeowner association" law, many attorneys profess to be expert in just that: "homeowner association law." The law should be "the law" -- period, no exceptions for individual groups or sideshows. If a person owns "real" property, then property law should be applied fairly to all, but it is not.
The proof of two legal systems is easily seen through a type of quasi-property ownership, a hybrid of sorts consisting of a contrived corporate fiction whose liabilities are shared amongst owners. It is against this backdrop, that certain property OWNERS have been lured into and made to conform to nefarious "industry standards" that are backdoored to our legislators. These so-called "standards" prevent this group of owners from effectively protecting their individual assets once they purchase "property" in a common interest development.
When making arguments against those who champion the owners' individual rights to protect their assets one of the most prevalent terms utilized by the "industry" is "homeowner advocate." Their use of this phrase is nothing more than a "label," it is an oxymoron and it is meaningless. Who would want to be a "homeowner advocate" for this bastardized hybrid type of living arrangement under the umbrella of a fictional corporate business shell. Who would advocate or promote such a disastrous concept?
As one author writes, soon, legislation will "shift the balance of power in homeowners associations away from the board of directors and in favor of the property owners." Presently, this cannot happen in California because it would entail recognition of the full bundle of sticks by way of "property rights" for those owners who by statute have inferior titles. The "industry's" relationship to a homeowners association consists only of an at-will contract to provide services and nothing more. It is the titleholder that has a VESTED INTEREST IN PROPERTY -- THE "INDUSTRY" HAS NO SUCH INTEREST WHATSOEVER!
Using the bundle-of-sticks metaphor, the bundle represents the owner's entire interest in property and each stick within the bundle represents a particular right held by the owner of that bundle. Owners, whose titles are clouded by deed-restrictions that forever change at the whim of any given board in power at the time, have experienced a taking of substantial property rights. Every time these deed-restrictions are amended, rewritten, or restated, the titleholder is usually denied rights that vested on purchase of their property. With each change or fluctuation in recorded or unrecorded restrictions and rules, the association "takes" from these owners a significant stick in the bundle of sticks that together constitute ownership of real property, thus denying them due process of law. Each stolen "stick" further denies that owner of yet another economically productive use of his property. Yet because the association it is not a governmental entity that is taking that property or property right, there is no compensation due the owner. Owners are left to their own devices to recoup or absorb their losses.
Deed-restricted ownership is a "risk" and it is "inferior" to all other types of real property ownership. One may have title to their property, pay taxes, and be with or without mortgage debt, but that does not mean you completely "own" that property in total. In such developments, the titleholder's asset basically consists of nothing more than the "inside space" of their home and in limited cases the outside structure, otherwise he or she virtually owns nothing outright because the actual ownership consists of a "fractional interest in common" with many others, and nothing more. In other words, one owns LIABILITIES-IN-COMMON with other fractional-interest owners. That's it. Whether it be a condominium, townhouse, single-family dwelling standing alone with no neighbors: If it is in a common interest development, has a homeowners association, has a board of directors, then that buyer's title is deed-restricted and inferior to all other types of REAL property ownership in the state.
Once the buyer understands that his purchase is "inferior" and his title is "restricted" maybe he will then understand that he does not own a "home" or "real property" in the traditional sense. When he fights to protect the rights he does not have, he will also uncover that he is NOT a true advocate for "home-ownership" therefore, he cannot be a "homeowner advocate" in the strict sense of the word. The best he can do, is attempt to protect his "asset" - whatever that is.
Because control is in the hands of an association's board of directors, the titleholder's control of his asset is "severely limited," and he can never own the land on which that structure (house) sits. Even if all the structures are damaged or destroyed (as in the Northridge earthquake) he still cannot escape assessment payments or his share of liability because a common interest development exists in "perpetuity" (forever) and, California courts have ruled such property cannot go bankrupt because each and every owner is mandated to pay unlimited assessments at any time. These owners are forced to pay to keep the association solvent.
CONFLICT!
Boo, hoo, hoo. While the "industry" continues to whine about their difficulty in squeezing more money from owners, but continue to deny their interloper status, they do however, manage to inject themselves into the bank accounts of millions of Villa Appalling! residents and attempt to goad them into spending even MORE money to support third-party advertisements, lobbies, and surveys.
The "industry's" insecurity can be seen through its self-obsession in defining itself through politically correct terminology connoting "fairness," "professionalism," "hard working," and "careers in serving communities." Oddly enough, none of those words are per se definable, they are instead, nebulous creations of these interlopers who have perfected if not legalized, an artful type of hard-to-detect thievery that goes unpunished year after year, decade after decade. Clinging to income projections geared for years to come, the interloper's "dedication" is that of a sociopathic parasite petrified that its host will starve it to death at any time.
Picture the industry interloper as a conglomerate enterprise dedicated to the usurping of power from the owners who rightfully own it, and placing them in a vulnerable position which prevents them from protecting their assets in a meaningful way without interference from an association, board of directors, management company, and attorneys. In espousing their self-declared dedication in putting the interests of the association-fiction in a primary position, the industry relegates titleholders who are responsible for bankrolling the operation, to a subordinate roll. The reason for this is that the association-fiction can demand "unlimited" funds at any time from all titleholders which in turn can further line "industry" pockets. Still, these interlopers serving "communities" deny their involvement in devaluing property and eroding rights.
Only when faced with the truth and starved of financial resources, and with the future of the "industry" at risk, does the interloper go on the defensive by reverting to the banal platitude that "criticism is healthy for any industry that takes itself seriously," all the while planning their next assault against the rights of titleholders.
CONTROL!
Owners must understand that they have lost control of their assets, that is, if they ever had control to begin with.
The "industry's" adeptness lies in creating confusion among buyers and owners. An example of this can be seen in California where several industry factions, in order to legitimize their standing, lobbied vigorously to pass a certified common interest managers bill. They really wanted that 'certification' and they got it. The problem? They obviously didn't think it would be so difficult to comply with, so it got watered down, and then watered down again, and now take a look at that ill-crafted bill and what one has to do to be "certifiable." Does a management company owner need to comply? Is there a requirement that such managers have a high school diploma? What about a mandatory bond and investigative background searches on managers? Go look at the statute.
Associations and industries that control them, wield unbridled power over owners and while there is an illusion of "choice" and "freedom" in residential deed-restricted environments, those basic constitutional rights are at risk of forfeiture once the purchase is made. Associations can dominate your lifestyle, control resales, interfere with your livelihood, and curtail your activities. Not only does the owner have to deal with a board of directors and association rules, but also other interlopers such as management companies and industry lawyers who further complicate the titleholder's ability to cope with complexities inherent in this scheme.
Just because you can afford to move "in" does not mean you can afford to "stay" or that you can afford to move "out." Most buyers are not advised that they must have a steadily increasing income to keep up with escalating arbitrary costs and trumped up fees when purchasing or refinancing. Owners who cannot afford to pay their association's demands for any increased fees and assessments, that can cost thousands of dollars per owner, cannot stay. Make no mistake: all the cash capital in the association's bank accounts is generated from each owner.
Certified Personal Financial Planner and Real Estate Broker, Thomas Foster, explains, "Once the deception of association-type living is uncovered, the obvious next move is to immediately cut your losses and get out of there. It is only then, that owners discover the trap they're in. Moving from a deed-restricted property to one without restrictions of similar size and location may at first appear to be a 'like-for-like exchange' however, when it comes to pricing that's where the similarity ends. The fact remains that unrestricted property is much more valuable than it's restricted counterpart."
The big question for owners who bought into this "affordable living fraud" is; can they afford the extra cost and higher property taxes to break out of the trap? Owners brag, "My home has appreciated hundreds of thousands of dollars." That elation is short-lived. Mr. Foster explains "that appreciation is somewhat irrelevant if it is not enough for you to make a like-for-like exchange in real time. Compared to other 'real' real estate, your deed-restricted title is immediately devalued because you are unable to move into a comparable 'freehold house' for the same money in the same area. When defining appreciation, the owner must subtract all assessment payments made during ownership to see the real picture."
The industry's control over owners in this environment is evidenced through the owners being burdened with a double financial risk because they essentially relinquish control of their assets to an elected board of directors. Mr. Foster cautions, "The owner's financial crisis differs substantially from the association's financial crisis. An association always has 'cash requirements,' and by law it can raise cash on demand from each owner. Even with this ability, these communities can remain in a constant flux of not being able to meet their liabilities. This means that a 'gain' for the association results in a corresponding 'loss' for each owner, subjecting seniors in particular to potential personal financial distress."
CONCEIT!
The real "community" consists of owners financing "industry employees." Bankers, attorneys, gardeners, landscape companies, management companies, lobbyists, attorneys, painters, roofers, plumbers, are ALL PAID VENDORS feeding off the carcasses of owners. Titleholders are merely the goose that lays the golden egg or the cash cow.
In order to provide the resources to pay for the excesses of those controlling the industry, such as their child's tuition to Harvard, Princeton, Yale, or other private schools, the second Mercedes, birthday parties, fur coats, jewelry, vacations in the Caribbean, ski trips, purchase of private "real" properties, or time-shares in Mammoth, Colorado, Florida, Palm Springs, yachts, five-star dining excursions, mountaineering tutors, personal trainers, fine clothing, funding personal pension plans and health insurance, owners merely have to work harder, take second jobs or simply deplete their equity to bankroll the industry's insatiable appetite.
Frequently, mutual ties between the management company and boards of directors can be cemented by the exchange of cheap trinkets such as glass vases filled with mints, bouquets of flowers with thank-you notes containing pre-paid dinners at a local restaurant or theatre tickets and occasional boxes of chocolates. As the stakes get raised, more substantial gifts come into play such as vacations, airplane tickets, trips, cruises, garage doors, and SO much more. The author of this article was offered a three-week first-class luxury cruise in exchange for hiring a particular management company. Needless to say, the offer was rejected.
CONTROVERSY!
The "industry" blames its continued demise on "hate." Not their "incompetence" or their "greed," or their "dishonesty," but, "hate." Refusing to take responsibility for its actions, this is an industry that has all but demolished the concept of "affordable housing" as it was once known and caused countless sections of law to be repealed or written to better favor vendor-interlopers; prevented owners from suing their associations to vindicate their rights; forced arbitration down our throats; caused monthly fees to go up by mandating association registration with the Secretary of State and other agencies; created monopolies where none existed before; eliminated a variety of choices for owners; file amicus briefs against owners who are struggling to hold their own in a court of law; and silencing voices of opposition.
In an excellent retort by Mr. George Staropoli, titled, “Community Associations Institute Reinvents Democracy, a Response to CAI/CEO criticism of Homeowner Advocates" he succinctly posits these queries: "Is it reasonable to oppose restoration of the homestead exemption? Or reasonable to oppose due process protections by independent tribunals? Or reasonable to seek draconian foreclosure measures against homeowners that amount to excessive punishments and a constitutional violation of the 8th Amendment. No, it's only reasonable if your objective is the perpetuating a defective, authoritarian, un-American form of governance throughout the land."
When the "industry" wants to continue its stranglehold over owners, it is considered to be "for the good of the association." When an owner attempts to protect his assets, he is considered to be "hateful," "petty," and "vindictive."
Make no mistake, the concept of a homeowners association is a sociological and economical disaster. It is a failure perpetuated by myths created and sustained by an industry that is fearful it's free ride on the backs of our personal income, will cease.
CORRUPTION!
Corruption in homeowner associations is expensive, unchecked, and rampant. In theory vendors pretend they are there to alleviate time constraints and take the burden off a volunteer board. But, because it has become so lucrative, they instead create moneymaking opportunities for themselves.
The "industry" interlopers who have supposedly made careers of "serving" so-called "communities" add to the various types of interference associations face today. These unmitigated influences, which trickle down upon owners across the country are costing countless millions of dollars in poor decisions made by boards under the spell of outside vendor perks.
Sabotaging homeowners -- Keep this story depicting an anatomy of corruption in mind the next time your home is headed for a holiday season foreclosure. It is December and association management companies are ratcheting up their holiday spirit by screwing over a few extra homeowners. In the following instance, the owner first learns purely by chance that he has a lien on his property and is in danger of foreclosure. He immediately contacts the board only to be referred to the management company who in turn informs him that a "notice," "copy of a bill of what he owed," and "several letters informing him of the situation had been sent to him." None of which had been actually received by the owner. Despite his protests, he was told it was "out of the association's hands" and "it's with a foreclosure company" and now he "has to deal with the attorneys." When attempting to contact the attorneys all he was given was a post office box and an answering service telephone number with a recording saying that the office was closed for the December holidays and would reopen sometime in January next year. As it was too late to get the payment to a post office box in order to save his property he tracked down the foreclosure company. Just imagine how difficult that is to accomplish particularly during this time of year! He showed up just in the nick of time only to be told by a receptionist, "how the hell did you find us?" Then the owner was told, that the receptionist was instructed NOT to accept any payments from owners and that the boss was on a ski trip out of the country and that the office was "technically closed." The owner said, "Too damn bad!" and with that, threw his payment on the desk and left. Fortunately the owner had the foresight to be accompanied by a credible witness and because of this the company could not deny receiving payment. He avoided foreclosure. Happy Holidays.
Though some may believe that California's legislature is headed in a direction away from its past bad decisions and leaning toward the views of property owners, we are reminded that the Devil's Dictionary defines the word "lawyer" as "One skilled in circumvention of the law."
~*~
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)