HOA Nightmares In Real Estate

A buyer of mine purchased a Coach in an existing land owned senior, co-operative mobile estate of 62 units, with the land owned by the co-op, the homeowners owning their coaches and a share of the co-op.

The purchase was a seller financed transaction, with a large cash down payment. Seller and Buyer were in agreement as to the terms. The Buyers followed the required protocol and met with the board "HOA" for approval. All went well at the meeting until the Buyers were asked for their Identification to verify their ages, and it was discovered that they were not married. Suddenly there were comments made by a member of the Board, specifically, "This is not the Love Boat!"

The Buyers were taken aback, but maintained their dignity and continued on with the interview, and at the end of the Meeting were given the Bylaws, ( there were no CC&R's) and told, "Welcome to the Park."

The Transaction continued with paperwork being signed and sent to escrow including information sheets from the "HOA."

Two days before close, the HOA called the Buyers and told them they were now requiring a credit report, and that their closing would be delayed until the HOA could obtain the report and review it. The Buyers were informed that this was the first time the HOA had required a report from anyone, and that they didn't quite know how to obtain or review said report. The Buyers provided their own reports to the HOA to speed things up for the closing. 

The Buyer was a business owner who had suffered from a stroke and had been in rehab for a year, and this was notated on his credit report as his credit had been seriously effected. The Co-Buyer's credit report was perfect, along with longstanding Job tenure.

The day before closing, Buyer and Agents for both parties were on site at the coach to view Seller authorized repairs and a final walk through. The Carpet in the Coach had been rolled back to repair some squeaks in the floor.

An Employee of the park, a landscaper came to the door and asked if he could see the coach, and viewed the carpet rolled back and made a comment, "Is the coach for sale?" and was told the coach was sold and closing shortly. He then left after saying it was a very nice home.

Shortly thereafter, several members of the HOA came to the front door and demanded to know what was going on. They were told that there were seller authorized repairs taking place. The HOA members then demanded to know who was paying for the repairs, and were told the sellers. The HOA members then stated no one was moving in and then were told by both Buyer's and Seller's Agents, no one was moving in until escrow had completed. The HOA stated "we didn't start Escrow" and that the BUYERS were NOT approved because they had bad credit even going as far as stating an amount! This was outside in the street with several neighbors watching, along with the repairman and his assistant. The HOA then demanded the phone number to the seller and aggressively demanded of the seller's agent to have the seller call the HOA. It was stated that the HOA didn't know if they, (the board) want to allow seller financing on any of the coaches as they were worried about the other homeowners.

The HOA then called the seller five times in the next 24 hours, along with contacting the seller's daughter and demanded that the transaction be stopped and informed the seller and her daughter of the specifics of the buyers credit report!

The Buyers were never informed of the HOA'S decision until it was overhead at the final walk-through. Neither were the Agents of either Buyer or Seller informed until requesting the denial in writing.

The HOA sent a note to Escrow, and then followed up with a letter saying the Buyers were denied, Three days later (after the scheduled close date), to the Agents with no specifics as for the denial.

Needless to say, the Buyers have obtained an Attorney, and have been informed to continue with closing if they so desire. The HOA has been served a notice informing them of the negligence and bias of their board members. Both Buyer and Seller are going to proceed and the HOA is liable for Attorney costs along with it's members for discrimination, violation of Fair Housing and Privacy acts.

The closing has been delayed over a month, and the Buyers are finally going to move into their new home next Wednesday.

This event stemmed form a turnover in the HOA board of 7 people! The former president had left and the power struggle by the Treasurer of the HOA trying to take control!

I have dealt with HOAs for years and have never encountered such a train of events! Is it any wonder that many people will buy into an HOA controlled community?

HOAs can be an asset to a community, but can also be a financial liability when they are not run properly.

Whenever you have a buyer who is purchasing in an area controlled by an HOA, Please investigate the HOA, it's board members, Bylaws, CC&R's to the full extent and review the parameters with your Buyer.

Save yourself and your Buyer a lot of Time, Money, and Stress!

Courtesy: Toni Anderson
http://activerain.com/blogsview/1929808/hoa-s-nightmares-in-real-estate

This article is not intended to be specific legal advice. It only provides general legal information. You should consult a licensed attorney if you have a legal issue.  

Buyer Beware (Avoiding HOA Nightmares)

One of the biggest real estate investing mistakes I have ever made was purchasing a condo in the Fontaine East “community” in Dekalb County Georgia, a community lacking an effective (knowledgeable) Homeowner’s Association (HOA).  Actually, what I bought is a veritable property owner’s nightmare!

Once I realized just how much of a mess I had gotten myself into, I decided to be a part of the solution…and I was, for three years as my HOA board president. During the tenure of the board (neighbors) that worked together, we made many obvious changes/improvements to our community. We banned together to combat a growing crime problem, we lowered association fees and improved the overall HOA payment rate to nearly 47%, we removed board members (neighbors) who were serving (not serving), the interests, both neighborly and financial of the community.

Due to personal reasons…(I was verrrrrrry pregnant and placed on bed rest), I resigned my position as president and now, once again, my “community” is in dire straits. *To the point that I no longer feel safe and have been forced to move. There are abandoned vehicles throughout the community, crime has/is increasing exponentially, buildings and units are being vandalized, the pool has been allowed to become a cesspool and eyesore, the roof repairing schedule we had come up with is null and void, and the board (many of whom are the same people who were sitting on the board when I purchased my condo, are once again “serving” without being properly voted into office)…and this is just to name a few complaints! The folks sitting on the HOA board at this time, have raised HOA fees, they have placed liens on many owner’s homes, thereby causing many folks to foreclose, (further adversely affecting property values), AND MOST DISAPPOINTINGLY, they have fostered a general apathy among neighbors.  Additionally, since no visible signs of proper management nor improvements can be seen on the premises, most, homeowners (including myself), have refused to pay fees to folks whom have from the onset, proven that they really do not know (or do not truly care about), what they are doing!

Yes, I am fully aware of my contractual obligations in living in a mandatory HOA community, however, I am also very aware of the FIDUCIARY OBLIGATIONS owed me (and my fellow neighbors), from the board of “directors.”  It is quite obvious that those serving on the board of directors at this time are obviously ignorant to and careless with the value of the hard earned money of their “neighbors.”

Additionally, what is an extreme slap in the face to all the hard work previously done in the community, is the fact that there are a few “vendors” whom were forced, (via court order) to release our community from bogus contracts…who are once again being allowed to “service” and make undeserved money off of our community. Now, we also have board members serving who either by admission or by fact of research owe HOA fees themselves and yet they continue to (a) improperly and illegally SIT on the board, AND, (b) at least three members (who are admittedly behind in fees), one of which has been paid, in my opinion exorbitant amounts of money to make “repairs” in the community, have numerous invoices for “services” provided. This truly alarms and angers me, especially given that our community bylaws specifically outlines the degree to which board members are to be “contracted” to provide services for the community…it is an obvious conflict of interest.  AND YET, THE BOARD IS DILIGENT (VIGILANT) IN ATTEMPTING TO FORCE FELLOW HOMEOWNERS TO ABIDE BY THE BYLAWS AND DECLARATIONS OF OUR “COMMUNITY”!

My major concerns regarding my present HOA board and the impending demise of my community (and my hard-earned investment), is that the board is not fair in their enforcement of bylaws and covenants (as is evident in the fact that board members are obviously exempt from the ramifications and legal parameters for non-payment of fees); none of the board have ever been properly voted into their positions, and yet they expect homeowners to in good faith, give them access to our hard earned money, in the form of HOA assessments; they are rude and condescending to owners at the sporadic meetings they hold and do not and have not ever provided any substantial information regarding the management of our community (other than copies of a financial statement generated by a management company); and they continuously withhold from owners, what I deem to be pertinent and necessary financial information regarding the financial status of our “community.”

I guess my concerns and dissatisfaction with the manner in which this board is presently “serving” the community stems from the fact that I KNOW UNEQUIVOCALLY HOW WELL THE COMMUNITY CAN (AND WAS) BEING MANAGED WHEN THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO TRULY “SERVE” THE COMMUNITY (NOT JUST IN TITLE), AND AS WAS EVIDENCED IN THE NUMEROUS, VISIBLE, IDENTIFIABLE, POSITIVE CHANGES THE COMMUNITY EXPERIENCED WHEN NEIGHBORS CAME TOGETHER TO WORK AS A UNIFIED FRONT AND “COMMUNITY.”

Further, it just really pisses me off (please excuse me), that (1) when I was paying my fees, they were not doing jack diddly and yet because the prevailing laws regarding HOA’s in no way serve, protect, nor offer real recourse to home owners, I am expected to basically donate my money to folks undeserving of having access to my HARD-EARNED MONEY; (2) the audacity of board members to think that I am willing to give them my hard earned money (to put in their pockets…I wouldn’t mind board members having contracts with the community if I could actually see things being done); (3) board members are jeopardizing home owner’s investments both individually and as a collective, for fee payment negligence, (when several of them are negligent), AND, (4) the blatant arrogance in their wrong doings.  It really makes me want to spit, every time I drive into my community which is more aptly described as a “ghetto” now.

In my personal search to find some relief and escape from my neighborly nightmare, I have come across the following helpful information that other disgruntled homeowners may find useful in learning more about condominium laws and rights as a homeowner.

1 - Do a search of your state’s official government homepage and look for links to state “laws,” “statutes,” “codes,” or “legislation.”

2 - For general information on homeowner’s association law, try visiting the Community Associations Network.

3 - Visit the Community Associations Institute on line which offers a myriad of information, resources, publications, and legislative activities.

4 - Attempt to work with your neighbors in making your community a nice place to call home, BUT, if this fails, take more drastic measures to save/protect your investment.

5 - Galvanize other concerned neighbors and work to have board members removed who are not serving the best interests of the community.

6 - Start a letter writing campaign (as I have done).  Write letters to anyone and everyone who will listen.  Contact elected officials, attorneys, judges, newspapers, radio stations and anyone willing to hear you and your neighbors out.

7 - Ask to review your community’s files and records (as is the law pursuant to The Georgia Non-Profit Corporation Code. *Homeowners are allowed this right REGARDLESS AS TO WHETHER THEY ARE DELINQUENT IN HOA FEES OR NOT.

8 - Hold your board of Directors accountable for any and all financial decisions (contracts entered into on behalf of the community), monies spent/disbursed; reserve account balances, etc.

If all else fails, contact a good lawyer(s) (as I have done) and research your rights and abilities to sue.

In the end, unless you are fortunate to sell your property and move on, neighbors will have to come to a happy medium and learn to work with each other…and in the case of HOA boards, work for the best interest (both financial and neighborly), of one another.

Courtesy: Yolanda J. Ash
http://yolandajash.com/real-estate-and-investing/buyer-beware-avoiding-hoa-nightmares/

This article is not intended to be specific legal advice. It only provides general legal information. You should consult a licensed attorney if you have a legal issue.  

To Many People it's Shangri-La. Heaven. Paradise.

Everybody's lawn is manicured. No one's gone to an electric chartreuse and fuchsia color scheme. No one's got her granny panties -- or thongs, for that matter -- flapping on a clothesline. No junk cars in the side yard. No sofas on the front porch.

Everything looks wonderful.

To others, it's sheer hell. Hades. Purgatory.

Skip one Saturday mowing the lawn and the Gestapo comes down on you. Four hundred and some houses are the same boring shade of beige. You can't get that nice fresh-air fragrance in your unmentionables. That classic Corvette you were planning to restore got towed away, and your wife has been officially informed that the cute little swing near the front door is a violation punishable by death.

Depending on your perspective, your homeowner's association is either the best of all worlds ... or the worst.

Here are just a few homeowner horror stories that have been reported to Bankrate:

• A man from Rancho Santa Fe, Calif., lost his home because he planted too many roses on his four-acre site. The board fined him and watched monthly as the fines mounted.
  
  When they slapped a lien on his home, he went to court and lost because he'd transgressed the board's architectural design rules. He was stuck with the board's $70,000 legal fees and lost his home to the bank.
• 
  
• A woman from Pomona, Calif., who was involved in a divorce fell behind with her monthly dues. The board said she owed $1,000; she said it was less than $800, and they went to court when the board threatened foreclosure.
  
  The woman was right -- the volunteer board's amateur accountants goofed, but the judge ruled she should have made back payments during the dispute, anyway, and the therapist was handed a $22,000 legal bill.
• A couple from Lawrenceville, Ga., found they had a $3,500 lien on their house when they tried to sell it. The homeowners association had been fining them every day they left pink flamingos on their lawn but didn't tell them. The association got the money, but the couple have filed suit to get it back.

• A Maryland man asked for a six-foot fence as protection from a neighbor who'd attacked him with a log. The board denied the request, so the homeowner sued -- and lost. It cost him $23,000 in legal fees and interest.
  
  Chastened, he built a shorter fence, but in places it was several inches taller than the four feet allowed. Board members came with a tape measure, fined him, slapped a lien on the home and seized the man's paycheck. "They took all my savings and treated me like a common criminal," he says.
• Sometimes, the long-gone developer causes problems. A Hillsborough, Calif., builder put houses wherever he could, then donated unusable areas as 'parkland' to the private community. The donated areas turned out to be unstable hillside that required the homeowners to pay loads of money for some expensive maintenance.
• 
  
• Near snowy Donner Pass, Calif., a development has rules that you can't drive over the snow or clear it from around your house to preserve the rural appearance and to provide zones for snowmobiles.
  
  A woman resident with a back injury wasn't able to walk the half mile to her house, so she drove over the snow. The association fined her up to $500 a day. She faces more than $50,000 in fines and has been fighting her HOA in court for three years. The case is unresolved.
• A Tampa, Fl., woman thought her attorney had paid all her delinquent HOA fees of more than $4,000, but she was wrong by $497. It cost her the house.
  
  The busy physical therapist ignored legal papers mailed to her, the association foreclosed and held a courthouse auction. A property company snapped up the house for $4,651, the price of the HOA's legal fees, then sold it for $88,000.
• 
  
• A family that cares for five foster children in Port Richey, Fla., was threatened with eviction from their residential development. The association considered having foster kids a business because the state paid $2,028 a month to care for the children.
  
  The 56-cents-an-hour 'business' owners are still fighting the case.
• 
  
• Sometimes a poor homeowner feels the wrath of the HOA even when he tries to succumb to the obscure rules and regulations. The nightmare for one Florida resident started only after he admitted he made a mistake and informed the HOA he was going to rectify it immediately.
  
  It seemed this hapless soul painted his house a bright blue -- after believing an HOA's secretary who said prior approval by the HOA was merely a formality. When he learned of his misdeed, he quickly agreed he would switch to a sanctioned shade.
  
  That's what made the subsequent assault by the HOA so bizarre.
  
  First it held a meeting to discuss the crime with neighbors -- but didn't invite the culprit. Then they stuffed fliers in each neighbor's mailbox -- carefully skipping the scene of the crime -- in which they went on at length about their outrage over the unauthorized paint job.
  
  When he got a copy of the flier from a sympathetic neighbor, the stunned homeowner wrote to the HOA president, reiterating his willingness to repaint the house and politely objecting to what he felt was needlessly abusive treatment and a dismal lack of neighborliness.
  
  He got no response from the grand poobah but did receive a threatening letter from the HOA lawyer.
  
  The final straw came at the end of the month when the HOA's monthly newsletter came out -- while the repaint work already in progress. The top story on the front page was a copy of the lawyer's nasty threatening letter to the harried homeowner, along with a note warning that all such miscreants would face a similar fate.
• 
  
• Rarely, homeowner association horror tales have a happy ending. Take the case of Houston attorney Wendy Laubach, who helped a man get his house back. Ill with a brain tumor, the man fell behind on $600 in condo dues. His association sued to get the money, piling on $4,600 more in legal fees. When the man couldn't pay on time, the association foreclosed and sold his $55,000 home for $17,000. Laubach got the foreclosure voided, a rare event.

If you're looking for help dealing with your HOA, visit the American Homeowners' Resource Center or the National Institute of Community Management or call its hotline at (800) 387-1099.

Read more: Homeowner horror stories: Associations are heaven or hell http://www.bankrate.com/finance/real-estate/homeowner-horror-stories-associations-are-heaven-or-hell.aspx#ixzz1xtoIb7pt

Courtesy: Paul Bannister • Bankrate.com
http://www.bankrate.com/finance/real-estate/homeowner-horror-stories-associations-are-heaven-or-hell.aspx

This article is not intended to be specific legal advice. It only provides general legal information. You should consult a licensed attorney if you have a legal issue.   

CC&Rs and Waivers of Constitutional Rights in HOA-Land

This June 13^th extremely important NJ Supreme Court opinion in Mazdabrook deals with the fundamental constitutional question that the homeowner had waived his rights when he agreed to the CC&Rs  covenants, which are broadly stated, vague, or implied. Homeowners do not!  This opinion will have national impact as other states will follow suit.

Mazdabrook involved  the right of a homeowner to place political signs on his  private property.  The NJ Supreme court said there was no waiver of free speech rights.

Moreover, Khan did not waive his constitutional right to free speech. To be valid, waivers must be knowing, intelligent, and voluntary, and a waiver of constitutional rights in any context must, at the very least, be clear. Khan was not asked to waive his free speech rights; he was asked — by different rules in three documents — to waive the right to post signs before getting Board approval, without any idea about what standards would govern the approval process. That cannot constitute a knowing, intelligent, voluntary waiver of constitutional rights. . . . . Instead, the exercise of those rights can be subject to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions. Finally, covenants that unreasonably restrict speech may be declared unenforceable as a matter of public policy.  (P. 5).

In other words, that  waiver must meet specific requirements, including an explicit statement of a waiver rather than an broad interpretation or implied waiver as is the current status of CC&Rs.  However, understand that rights can be waived if these requirements are met.

Waiver is the “intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or privilege.” Although rights may be waived, courts “indulge every reasonable presumption against waiver of fundamental constitutional rights.” To be valid, waivers must be knowing, intelligent, and voluntary.

The NJ Supreme Court seemed to have educated itself about the spread of CC&Rs with its boiler-plate wording that imply or are interpreted as a waiver, and takes a slap at comment h under § 3.1, Validity of Covenants (Restatement (Third) Property: Servitudes), that argued for the doctrine of equitable servitudes (covenants) to be held superior to the Constitution.

 The proliferation of residential communities with standard agreements that restrict free speech would violate the fundamental free speech values espoused in our Constitution — the “highest source of public policy” in New Jersey. (P.11).

Validity of CC&Rs to bind

Not addressed and unanswered in this opinion is the fundamental question, by extension of what constitutes a waiver, is the question of the validity of the CC&Rs. Is the doctrine of constructive notice sufficient for the CC&Rs to be held as a binding contract?   If the  CC&Rs are held as invalid, then the question of the waivers of rights becomes moot.

How can the simple notice to the county clerk bind anybody to anything, and be considered a waiver of any right or an agreement to be bound in general?  Especially when it is required that, “To be valid, waivers must be knowing, intelligent, and voluntary.”  There is not even a warning in bold, capitalized, large font stating, at purchase time, that the “Taking this deed alone binds you to the CC&Rs sight unseen, without having to read, sign or agree to it.”

Background information 

This case made references to the Twin Rivers free speech case of 2007, the controlling NJ Schmidt case (as did Twin Rivers), and was also based on violations of the NJ Constitution.  Once again, ACLU and The Rutgers Constitutional Law Clinic, Frank Askin Director, filed an amicus curiae brief.  NJ CAI filed an amicus in opposition.  Both were allowed to present oral arguments on the question of  waivers of constitutional rights under HOA CC&Rs.  It is legal, but not binding precedent outside of NJ.

Courtesy: George K. Staropoli
http://pvtgov.wordpress.com/2012/06/15/ccrs-and-waivers-of-constitutional-rights-in-hoa-land/

This article is not intended to be specific legal advice. It only provides general legal information. You should consult a licensed attorney if you have a legal issue.   

HOA 'Steals' Homeowner's Virgin Mary Statue

"Thou shalt not steal" is a shared societal principle that, by law, protects our private property, religious or otherwise, from being taken by others at will. That is, at least, until your private property becomes offensive to your local homeowners' association.

An enraged family in Pittsburgh is accusing their homeowners' association of "stealing" the beloved Virgin Mary statue that they had displayed in front of their Robinson Township condominium.

The homeowners' association has admitted to the "theft," conceding that they did indeed have the 150-pound cement statue removed from the Vasko family's home -- but only because it was placed on "common ground" where homeowners are legally banned from displaying anything.

To add insult to injury, the Vasko family have been slapped a hefty fine for every month that they violated the policy, and have racked up a bill of over $4,000. Until the fine is paid, the homeowners' association has announced, it will hold the Virgin Mary statue in custody and have suspended the Vasko family's rights to park on their own property.

"Would that be extortion or kidnapping?" An irate Steven Vasko told television station KDKA 2. "You tell me, I don't know."

This is not the first time this year that local homeowners' associations have drawn fire for questionably strict enforcement of covenant rules. In June, a 77-year-old Army veteran in Macedonia, Ohio, was threatened with legal action for having an American flag flying in his front yard -- in potential violation of the "Freedom to Display the American Flag Act" of 2005.

Similarly, in July, a couple in Bossier City, La., were sued by their homeowners' association for refusing to remove a front yard banner supporting their son, who was serving as a Marine in Afghanistan at the time. According to the couple's lawyers, this viciously "attacked" the homeowners' First Amendment rights to freedom of expression.

Similar defenses could be used in this case, where sensitive issues such as religious expression are forced into the limelight. Because the object in question is an "article of faith," it is argued by the American Civil Liberties Union that the right of "families to erect [religious] monuments on their own property is constitutionally protected, regardless of whether it is public or private and regardless of whether someone is offended or not."

And it looks like Vasko plans to leverage that argument until he gets his statue back.

"This is religious persecution. This is discrimination," Vasko says. "Is it a losing battle to hold your ground? No. If you are [losing], then we might as well all quit as Americans."

Courtesy: Krisanne Alcantara.
http://realestate.aol.com/blog/2011/12/13/hoa-steals-homeowners-virgin-mary-statue/

This article is not intended to be specific legal advice. It only provides general legal information. You should consult a licensed attorney if you have a legal issue.   

Mezuzah Case: Condo Association Bylaw vs. Jewish Practice

The case of a Connecticut woman who's being fined for affixing a mezuzah to her condo's doorframe pits the First Amendment's guarantee of religious freedom against a condo association's bylaws -- and so far, the condo association isn't backing down.

Neither is Barbara Cadranel: Though the California Condo Association in Stratford, Conn., is threatening to impose a $50-a-day fine until the tiny religious scroll in its small, decorative box is removed, the 60-year-old tenant is fighting to be able to practice a required Jewish rite.

In her opinion, she's being discriminated against, and she may be right. Her neighbors have been freely allowed to hang Easter wreathes and crucifixes on their doors. The difference, though, is that the California Condo Association allows for door adornments, but claims its rules prohibit hanging anything on the doorframe, where Jewish law explicitly requires a mezuzah be hung.

That's a very pointed attack on religious rights, says Cadranel's lawyer, Alyza Lewin of Lewin & Lewin LLP in Washington, D.C.

"They allow everything -- they don't have a problem as long as it's not on the doorframe," Lewin said. "They make a distinction between the door and the doorpost, and the one item with any regularity that you'll see on the doorpost is a mezuzah. That's a rule that is targeting mezuzahs without saying it explicitly."

Bending A Definition

Beyond that, Lewin alleges, even the condo association's claim that the bylaw in question applies to doorframes is a stretch.

"It prohibits her from putting anything on the exterior walls, but in the text, the exterior walls clearly refer to the outside of the building -- the awnings, for example -- and have nothing to do with interior walls," Lewin said. "They're squeezing in the doorpost as an exterior wall. It seems as if they're trying to force this definition in order to come up with some justification."

Though there's nothing cited specifically about the inside hallways -- where the units' doors are -- the condo association has been pushing that interpretation to make its case. Yet the bylaws, which enumerate what belongs to each individual owner, explicitly identify windows, window screens and screen doors as part of the condominium unit. Given that, it's baffling that the doorframe wouldn't be included, according to Lewin.

"The idea that the screen door -- but not the door frame -- is a part of the unit, that would probably come as a surprise to the people at Home Depot people selling you a door," she said.

Exclusion Beyond Aesthetics

Given that the small glass mezuzah (secured in place by Velcro) is neither a safety hazard nor an eyesore, Lewin says, she can only interpret this to be a case of discrimination. That would put the California Condo Association in violation of the Federal Fair Housing Act.

"You're saying that the only people who can live here cannot put up a mezuzah," Lewin said. "The condominium is saying that observant Jews aren't welcome to live here."

The Anti-Defamation League has also rallied behind Cadranel to protect her rights.

"Requiring it to be taken down is tantamount to requiring a Jewish person to move," said Randi Pincus, assistant director of the Connecticut regional office of the ADL. "In effect, it's to exclude people of a certain background from living there."

Pincus said that mezuzah cases crop up every few years. And legal precedents have been set indicating that Cadranel is likely to win her case if it goes to court. In 2009, the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Bloch v. Frischholz that a condo rule prohibiting an owner from affixing a mezuzah violated various federal prohibitions against religious discrimination in housing.

There's another type of religious housing case that has cropped up in the courts and in the news in recent years. Some groups have fought against the rights of Orthodox Jews to put up an eruv -- a ritual enclosure line that surrounds a community. Usually created by running thin, virtually invisible fishing wire from the tops of utility poles and streetlamps, an eruv makes it legal (under Jewish law) for a religiously observant person to perform certain activities outside during the Sabbath that would otherwise be forbidden: carrying a cane, for example, or pushing a stroller.

And as with the mezuzah, whatever antagonism arises over an eruv seems aimed less at its actual, physical presence -- which can go almost undetected -- and more at the people who need it.

"Unless you know that the eruv is there, the casual observer won't notice it," Lewin said. "It's not as if the opposition to it is not an aesthetic one. There's some concern that if there's an eruv in the area, there's a thought that the Orthodox Jews who require this will move in and the community will be overrun by a certain type of person."

Said Pincus: "Any case where there's an issue of trying to take regulations and adjust them as necessary to accommodate religious practice, every effort should be made. Especially in the case of the mezuzah: It's not harming anyone, and it's very unobtrusive."

Staying Strong

If the condominium association does not agree to allow the mezuzah, Lewin said that she will file complaint on behalf of Cadranel with the Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities.

Cadranel is weathering the storm.

"By allowing those displays but prohibiting my small mezuzah, they have made me -- as a Jew -- feel very unwelcome," Cadranel told AOL Real Estate. "I have felt bullied and intimidated. I think the distinction they are making between the door and the doorpost is bogus."

"It's made her feel rather unwelcome," said Lewin, "but at the moment she has no plans of leaving, and no plans of taking down the mezuzah."

Update: On April 3, Nathan Lewin and Alyza D. Lewin announced that their client Barbara Cadranel, had successfully resolved the issue in her favor--just in time for the Easter and Passover season. The California Condominium Association has agreed to allow Cadranel to hang her mezuzah and has completely removed any penalties and fees against her. The condominium association has also announced that it will allow any future residents to place a mezuzah or any other religious symbol on door frames without necessary approval.

Courtesy: Ross Kenneth Urken.
http://realestate.aol.com/blog/2012/03/29/mezuzah-case-condo-association-bylaw-vs-jewish-practice?icid=maing-grid7|main5|dl3|sec1_lnk3%26pLid%3D147690

This article is not intended to be specific legal advice. It only provides general legal information. You should consult a licensed attorney if you have a legal issue.   

Las Vegas Homeowners Association Scandal Claims 4th Victim

The body count has reached four in a Nevada homeowners association scandal that has witnesses fearing for their lives.

The case concerns a 2008 scheme by several conspirators to gain control of HOA boards through fraudulent elections and the use of so-called "straw buyers," in order to steer business to a favored law firm and construction company. Two critically important figures, both attorneys, were found dead this week, both possible suicide victims.

The body of 57-year-old Las Vegas lawyer David Amesbury (pictured at far left) was discovered Sunday by Amesbury's brother in Grass Valley, Calif., near Sacramento. Amesbury, who had been staying at his brother's home, was found hanging in a shed. In October 2011, he pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud and one count of conspiracy to commit bank fraud.

"There is no evidence of foul play or suspicion right now, but it's still being investigated," said Nevada County Chief Deputy Coroner Paul Schmidt, speaking with ABC News. It will take about 10 weeks for autopsy results to be released.

"I know of no specific reason why he would have done this," said Frank Cremen, Amesbury's defense lawyer. According to his plea bargain, Amesbury was facing a maximum of 27 years in federal prison. But Cremen said his client would not have served such a harsh sentence, having cut a deal with federal investigators that required him "to provide complete and truthful information and testimony concerning [his] knowledge of all other persons who are committing or have committed offenses against the United States or any state" (in the words of the plea memorandum). Sentencing had been adjourned until Sept. 21, 2012, "but it would have been postponed and postponed repetitiously," Cremen said in an interview. "The government would not have wanted him sentenced until he testified, and the people he would have been testifying against hadn't even been indicted yet."

"I know his family doesn't believe it was a suicide," Cremen previously told ABC.

In addition to pleading guilty in the HOA conspiracy, Amesbury confessed to being a part of previous plot, this one intended to defraud banks in the course of seeking to refinance a Clark County courthouse cafe of which he was a partial owner. It was through this business venture that Amesbury knew two men -- former construction company boss Leon Benzer and former Las Vegas Police Lt. Benjamin Kim -- who are reportedly targets of the federal investigation into the HOAs, although neither man has been charged.

Amesbury's legal troubles were not the only adversity he faced. On the morning of Nov. 16, he "was found severely beaten on the side of the road" in a gated community in Henderson, Nev., according to Las Vegas TV station KTNV. Amesbury was shirtless, with his pants around his ankles. "He was really beaten to a pulp," a source close to the investigation said, according to the Daily Mail. "He had two broken ribs, and both his kneecaps were shattered. He also had a variety of facial injuries." Amesbury was in possession of 30 Valium pills and indicated to police that he planned to kill himself, or at least to try.

That day, a spokesman for the FBI told KTNV, "At this time, there is no evidence that the assault on Mr. Amesbury was related to the federal investigation into local homeowners associations. However, if we do uncover evidence that Mr. Amesbury was targeted because he was a federal witness, we will aggressively seek to charge the perpetrators to the maximum extent of federal law." Following an investigation, federal authorities did not change their official position.

Another Key Figure

Amesbury's death comes on the heels of the apparent suicide of 51-year-old Nancy Quon (pictured above), a construction-defect lawyer found dead on March 20 in the bathtub of her condominium in Henderson (the same town in which Amesbury was discovered after his assault). As in Amesbury's death, Quon's body was found by a family member. "Suicide will be one of the considerations along with accidental and medical, but at this time there is no evidence of foul play," a police spokesman told KTNV.

Quon too was a target of federal investigators for her role in the HOA plot, though she hadn't yet been indicted. As reported by John L. Smith in the Las Vegas Review-Journal, "Authorities believe she was a key figure" in the conspiracy "to generate millions of dollars from construction defect lawsuits and repairs."

Smith conducted an interview with Quon in December 2010, after a possible suicide attempt involving a fire at her home on Oct. 28, 2010, which nearly killed her. A separate legal imbroglio resulted from this incident, which prosecutors characterized as an arson-murder-suicide scheme gone wrong, involving Quon and her boyfriend, a former police officer.

"I think, to me," Quon told Smith, "maybe that was the most disconcerting part about the newspaper stories, that they would indicate that I was somehow suicidal, or ... that I would consider taking my own life. And anyone who knows me knows that's just not my personality. I'm a fighter. My practice was taking on huge developers and insurance companies, and they just don't roll over. It's always a fight."

Quon's pride derived from her status as a self-made woman. From a working-class background she rose to become a top litigator; her introduction to the law was a job as a legal runner when she was still a teen. After time spent working as a paralegal and studying at California Western School of Law, Quon was a single mother apparently living the American dream.

She "had a reputation as a bruising construction-defect litigator," Smith recalls. "Her cases were well-prepared, her arguments professionally delivered, her judgment victories in the millions." If the FBI and the Justice Department are correct, it would seem for some reason that this wasn't enough.

Previous Plea-Deals and Deaths

Before Quon and Amesbury, there was retired Metro Lt. Christopher Van Cleef, who shot himself in September 2008 after being named in connection with the widening corruption investigation. "Van Cleef was a member of the homeowners association at Pebble Creek Village, one of seven condominium complexes around the valley named in a federal warrant," according to the Review-Journal. "Allegations of voter fraud have surfaced in a civil lawsuit at Pebble Creek Village," where "Van Cleef and two others named in the warrant were elected to the board in May." Jeremy Doering, a former president of the board, said that he and other residents had recalled the three, suspecting the use of duplicate ballots to elect them, but that they had refused to resign.

"Doering and other residents of the complex have said that although the development does not have any serious defects, Van Cleef and the other two board members had talked of filing a construction-defect lawsuit," the Review-Journal reports. Van Cleef mentioned in particular that he thought it would be a good idea to have Nancy Quon "look into any defects."

The conspiracy's first casualty was Robbie Castro, a former HOA board member in Visitana, Nev., who died from a drug overdose in 2010. KLAS-TV in Las Vegas called it "an apparent suicide."

According to The Associated Press, 10 people have accepted plea deals in the case since August, including a southern Nevada political consultant and several homeowner association agents -- and, of course, David Amesbury. More indictments are expected. "Prosecutors plan to name up to 20 new defendants soon," the Daily Mail reports, citing federal documents.

Meanwhile, those tied to the investigation are becoming increasingly tense. A defense lawyer involved in plea negotiations told the Review-Journal, "Some of the witnesses are extremely concerned about their well-being and safety. People are dying here."

"All of these deaths are just too much of a coincidence," said one former Vistana board member, who served alongside the late Robbie Castro and helped bring to light the association's corruption. "None of them make sense to any of us."

"This investigation is very peculiar," Amesbury's attorney explained, "because it has gone on for an extremely long time. It has periods of dormancy, and it's been marked with some confusion." Cremen blamed the massive plot -- rigged HOA elections, fake construction defect lawsuits, kickbacks like the one that enticed his client -- on a trend that began two decades ago, when Southern California developers expanded north to Las Vegas. "We never had an issue with [construction-defect lawsuits] until the big boom 20 years ago, when all the Southern California contractors moved up to Vegas. And when the builders moved up here the lawyers followed them, like ants following a meal."

Courtesy: Eamon Murphy.
http://realestate.aol.com/blog/2012/03/29/las-vegas-homeowners-association-scandal-claims-4th-victim/

This article is not intended to be specific legal advice. It only provides general legal information. You should consult a licensed attorney if you have a legal issue.