I recently wrote in a print column that a Maricopa County Superior Court judge had declared unconstitutional a two-year-old Arizona law that allowed disputes between homeowner association boards and HOA members to be addressed by a state hearing officer. This was intended to be a more affordable and homeowner-friendly alternative to fighting an HOA board in court. The point of the column was to outline various possible options if that ruling stands. But the headline of the column was rather provocative, suggesting that I sided completely with the HOA industry in opposing any more government regulation. That brought out some real anger among both local readers and HOA activists across the country. Here’s an example of what they had to say to me from reader Melissa Hill:

“Before you wrote this article you should have investigated further into the issues surrounding HOAs and the folks that live in them. This is not simply a contractual issue. A few members of a neighborhood can band together and change the contract ‘rules.’ or contract terms, at any time without discussion or vote, as has happened in my neighborhood, and use scare tactics to force the neighbors into ‘compliance”’of these new contract terms, as they would be considered by (Scott) Carpenter.  While this is illegal under our existing documents, they do it because they know that the homeowners do not have the money to challenge them in a court of law.  In the real world we call that “bait and switch”, also known as FRAUD.

“The title of your article is downright irresponsible and shows your ignorance of the rampant misdoings in HOAs.  I’m a board member in my HOA, and I know what I’m talking about.  And my board president IS A LAWYER.  Mr. Carpenter has much to gain by leaving the system as it is. This is not a professional opinion that should carry much weight in a story about the true FACTS of the situation.”

And that was among the more polite emails I received (Melissa and I exchanged several additional emails of a more positive nature, and I respect her passion on this issue).

While doing my interviews, it was pointed out that a Superior Court judge doesn’t set precedent. So the hearing officer process might just continue even if it couldn’t be applied to this specific case. But another alert reader let me know that Scott Carpenter’s law firm already has requested that the judge’s ruling be applied to all future HOA cases, which essentially would block the hearing officer route entirely.

We’re still waiting to hear whether state Attorney General Terry Goddard will appeal the ruling.

Posted in: Arizona Legislature • Arizona government • HOA • Homeowner associations • Terry Goddard |

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.