Round 1: Homeowner 1 - HOA 0

[vaskidmark]

http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/news/2010/sep/22/romi22-ar-518161/

A Chesterfield County Circuit Court judge has found in favor of Romito, who sued his neighborhood's homeowners association claiming he shouldn't be forced to pay membership dues because he never wanted to be a member.

In his ruling, Judge Herbert C. Gill Jr. affirmed that, noting that the dues were not in place 20 years ago when Romito purchased his home in Bexley -- an upscale Chesterfield community of 407 homes built in the 1970s.

"To say a taxpaying citizen could buy a home and then be forced to incur financial obligations without prior notice is simply unjust," Gill wrote in the ruling.

Guy bought his home 20 years ago, before the HOA decided to start collecting annual "dues".  Additionally, the "dues" go mainly towards upkeep of the lake to which Romito and others without lakeshore property has limited access.

Asked whether he planned to appeal the ruling, Bexley Association attorney N. Leslie Saunders Jr. said: "It's too early to decide.

Judge finds that being assessed money you never agreed to be assessed, that goes towards projects you derive little benefit from (and certainly not in proportion to the amount you pay), is a violation of the contract between the homeowner and the HOA.

Round 1 gives me some hope that the tide is turning.  We'll see if the HOA decides to push for Round 2.

stay safe.

[Thor]

The HOA will probably try for round 2 because they are using other people's money...

[MechAg94]

The HOA will probably try for round 2 because they are using other people's money...

This and people trolling for settlements is IMO a big part of what is wrong with our civil justice system.

[BrokenPaw]

Judge finds that being assessed money you never agreed to be assessed, that goes towards projects you derive little benefit from (and certainly not in proportion to the amount you pay), is a violation of the contract between the homeowner and the HOA.

Does that mean that I can use this as precedent to fight income taxes, since they go for projects like welfare, that I derive little benefit from (and certainly not in proportion to the amount I pay), which is a violation of the contract between me and the FedGov?

Hey, I can dream...

[RevDisk]

Does that mean that I can use this as precedent to fight income taxes, since they go for projects like welfare, that I derive little benefit from (and certainly not in proportion to the amount I pay), which is a violation of the contract between me and the FedGov?

Hey, I can dream...

HOA != government.

Government is free to impose obligations on you under the Sixteenth Amendment on your income.  Other provisions allow other forms of taxes.

 


One thing I never understood.  Why it is justified for the government to do something that is forbidden to an individual or collection of individuals?

[AZRedhawk44]

One thing I never understood.  Why it is justified for the government to do something that is forbidden to an individual or collection of individuals?

Compulsion and monopoly of force.

Only Government has the power to compel.

Private contractual law has no power to compel, and it's the only base of law with which individuals and corporations have to broker agreements with one another.  By its very nature, one must agree to a contract.

There is no distinct agreement that you enter into with your relationship to the Government.  You are compelled to enter into agreement with it via the monopoly of force.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

One thing I never understood.  Why it is justified for the government to do something that is forbidden to an individual or collection of individuals?

The people delegated authority to government to do those things.

It has nothing to do with monopoly on force.

[Ned Hamford]

Private contractual law has no power to compel, and it's the only base of law with which individuals and corporations have to broker agreements with one another.  By its very nature, one must agree to a contract.

Even further, under US Law, one is free not to abide by an entered contract: as long as the stipulated damages are paid, or the damages as accessed by an agreed arbiter or court.  Being legally able to break a contract is a feature of our free society, economic mobility and whatnot.  

Aside from fraud [entering the contract with an intent to break it] the only consequences are economic and social.  As much as the folks on the other side of the contract would prefer otherwise...

[Tallpine]

One thing I never understood.  Why it is justified for the government to do something that is forbidden to an individual or collection of individuals?

What are you, some sort of anti-authoritarian anarchist ?   

(me, too  )

[Tallpine]

The people delegated authority to government to do those things.

It has nothing to do with monopoly on force.

What people?  Not me - all they did was tell me how it was going to be in the pubic skool day camps

[BReilley]

The people delegated authority to government to do those things.

You mean, the government delegated authority to the government to do those things.

It has nothing to do with monopoly on force.

...that's not at all true.  Stop paying your mortgage, the bank "repossesses" your house, which involves papers, credit ratings, etc.  If you don't play nice and leave, they call the government(the cops) to remove you - they don't have some private army to compel you.
The only entity which can legally *initiate* a forcible encounter in the US is the government.

[BridgeRunner]

One thing I never understood.  Why it is justified for the government to do something that is forbidden to an individual or collection of individuals?

Precedent.

[RevDisk]

Precedent.

Is it a bad sign when I find that legitimately funny?

[BridgeRunner]

Is it a bad sign when I find that legitimately funny?

Yes.

[Hawkmoon]

What are you, some sort of anti-authoritarian anarchist ?   

Is there any other kind? Somehow, the concept of an authoritarian anarchist makes my little brain hurt.

[gunsmith]

most self proclaimed anarchist are actually liberals with pierced genitals and torn jeans, and are totalitarian and authoritarian.

Their heads explode when I tell them that I'm an anarchist, thats why I'm pro life and vote mostly conservative

[Jamisjockey]

Wait.
As I read the article, the HOA was formed before he bought the house.  Yes, it was a duesless HOA, but....
An HOA has governing articles.  Generally, those articles should give the HOA the ability to restructure with majority votes, including collection of dues.
I smell judicial activist fail.

[BridgeRunner]

As I read the article, the HOA was formed before he bought the house.  Yes, it was a duesless HOA, but....

I don't think so.

Historically, there were 17 sections. Each section had covenants.  Dues were only a part of two of these (in the rest, dues were "voluntary" iow, not a part of the covenant).  In 2009, the sections voted to created a unified "covenant"-aka-hoa and impose mandatory dues.

Now, to be fair, I have not looked at this body of law in detail in about three years, but I'm pretty sure it's established law that you can't do that.  The previous covenants could certainly vote to unify for various functions, but they cannot transform the entire nature of the covenant including change the membership and rules and create a new entity and still require participation from prior landowners. 

It didn't convert from non-dues paying hoa into a dues-requiring hoa.  It converted from seventeen neighborhood covenants into one dues-requiring hoa.