|
|
|
|
|
Information about Community Associations Instiitute - CAI - HOA Foreclosure Lawyers Trade Group
|
|
Community Associations Instiitute - CAI - HOA Foreclosure Lawyers Trade Group
7700 Little River Turnpike - Suite 404
Alexandria, Virginia 22003
Phone: (703) 750-3644 Fax: (703) 941-1740
http://www.caionline.org
Trademember: CAI Foreclosure lawyers lobbying for Non-judicial foreslosures in homowner associations
Rank: No ranking.
|
Summary: Comment 7. A lot of people on this forum will tell you not to go to Executive Council of Homeowners - ECHO, Community Associations Instiitute - CAI, or California Association of Community Managers - CACM for recommendations because these organizations are part of the "evil HOA racket." Bill Mills - November 19, 2007
• Tax ID 521074939 - 501 (c)6 Non-profit organization (per Ann Byrd - Controller - September 7, 2004)
• A trade lobby group for homeowner association foreclosure lawyers and their litigation support groups.
• For many years, CAI has been misrepresenting to the public and legislators that they are an
|
Other Information: "educational" organization and represent association homeowners and homeowner associations. Trade publication: Common Ground
• In 1990 advocates from AHRC began broadcasting on their radio program and via newsletters, faxes and direct testimony at legislative hearings that CAI did not represent homeowners and that the laws CAI sponsored e.g. AB 1545 - putting assessement liens before first trust deeds and AB 1793 - giving HOAs (boards and lawyers) powers to fine and foreclose on homes, helped lawyers take homes and life savings for violations and fees manufactured by CAI.
• Homeowner Association Foreclosure Lobby Group Requests Information On Homeowner Advocacy Groups - An email from Community Associations Institute (CAI) - Chris Durso - February 21, 2006
Now that the media and legislators are better informed, CAI claims they are , "a national nonprofit association created to educate and represent the nation's 250,000 community association."
Very few homeowner associations pay to belong to CAI. CAI asks its managers and other vendors to pay memberships for board members. In addition when these board members are given "memberships," board members certainly have no ability to give CAI the right to "represent "the association without the permissions from all of the owners..
Tom Skiba - CEO
Frank Rathburn - VP Communications Work:(703)797-6261, or Home: (703) 256-7731, or FRathbun@caionline.org
Alexa - Admin Assistant
Alexa Stanton - Administrative Assistant
CAI College of Community Association lawyers - a group of foreclosure lawyers who lobby, spread and profit greatly from the homeowner foreclosure laws they helped write in the various states.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
List of CAI foreclosure lawyers promoted by CACM managers - both trade lobby groups lobby for laws that create lawsuits and foreclosures in homeowner associations.
Posted Jul 20 2007 5:37AM CEST
|
| |
|
Submitted Files
|
| |
Filename
|
Description
|
File Type
|
File Size
|
Click to download
|
| |
CACMCAILegalDirectory.pdf
|
List of CAI foreclosure lawyers promoted by CACM managers - both trade lobby groups lobby for laws that create lawsuits and foreclosures in homeowner associations.
|
PDF document, version 1.4
|
52KB
|
Download
|
|
| |
Username withheld
, California |
| |
|
|
| |
I'm startled by CAI's claim of some 26,000 members in its Call & Response article. LAst time I checked, some 6 months ago, it was only 17,000 members.
You'll also gain a network of industry colleagues--over 26,000 of them--and a variety of benefits and services designed to meet your specific and unique needs. (CAI website, CAI Membership Information, 7/16/06).
Yet, in CAI's Public Policies PDF page, p. 3, copyright of just 2005, CAI indicates some 17,000 members. 10,000 new members in less than a year, a 63% increase while its membership fluctuated around 16,000 for the past several years?
Anyone have information on this sudden increase in membership? I know that I've been stating that this paltry membership leaves a false impression of the impact of CAI's national lobbying effort.
George Staropoli
http://pvtgov.org
Posted Jul 17 2006 8:28AM CEST
|
| |
|
| |
Username withheld
, California |
| |
|
|
| |
• More than 54 million Americans live in homeoewner associations
• At least 1.25 million people serve on homeowner association boards
• Annual operating revenue for U.S. homeowner association is more than $35 billion.
• The value of the homes in all homeowner assocation is estimated at $3.5 trillion.
DATA SOURCE: Association Information Services developed this information for Community Associations Institute(CAI) using the U.S. Census publications, the American Housing Survey, IRS Statistics of Income Reports, CAI professional members, and from California and Florida and related trade groups.
Posted Feb 19 2006 12:20PM CET
|
| |
|
| |
Username withheld
, California |
| |
|
|
| |
CAI reaction to New Jersey Appellate Court Hands Down Significant Constitutional Ruling 2/06 - Committee for a Better Twin Rivers, et. al. v. Twin Rivers Homeowners' Association, et. al, (Twin Rivers) the New Jersey Appellate Division
" While CAI believes that associations should be reasonable in creating rules regulating the free expression of homeowners in their associations, the breadth of the opinion in the Twin Rivers case could be problematic. Whether this case will be appealed to the Supreme Court of New Jersey has not yet been determined."
Posted Feb 13 2006 8:44PM CET
|
| |
|
| |
Username withheld
, California |
| |
|
|
| |
For over 25 years the CAI lawyers have been
• lobbying as " homeowner association stakeholders" with politicians, media insurance, banking, real estate and other industries against the owners interest
• writing homeowner association laws with loopholes that turn homes, home equity and homeowner association reserves, and insurance policies of homeowners into lawyers fees
• selling training seminars and awarding the alphabets that homeowner association managers post beside their names on their calling cards
• advising homeowner association managers and board members
• filing lawsuits against owners, builders and other businesses and government on behalf of homeowner association board members, or defending board members against owners and others
The architects who fashioned and continue to lobby for America's Homeowner Association foreclosure laws are all lawyers and call themselves the "College of Community Association Lawyers (CCAL)".
Joseph E. Adams, Esq.
Becker & Poliakoff
14241 Metropolis Ave #100
Fort Myers, FL 33912
Work: 239-433-7707 Fax: 239-433-5933
Lisa J. Anderson, Esq.
Bender and Anderson and Barba, P.C.
3190 Whitney Avenue, #BLD5
Hamden, CT 06518-2340
Work: 203-248-6440 Fax: 203-288-9054
Mr. David M. Bendoff, Esq.
Kovitz, Shifrin, Nesbit
750 Lake Cook Road, #350
Buffalo Grove, IL 60089
Work: 847-777-7254 Fax: 847-537-0550
J. David Bennett, Esq.
Landye Bennett Blumstein, LLP
1300 S.W. 5th Avenue, Suite 3500
Portland, OR 97201-5641
Work: 503-224-4100 Fax: 503-224-4133
Mr. Scott B. Carpenter, Esq.
Carpenter Hazlewood, PLC
1400 E. Southern Avenue, Suite 640
Tempe, AZ 85282
Work: 480-991-6949 Fax: 480-991-7040
Deborah Mancoll Casey, Esq.
Vandeventer Black, LLP
500 World Trade Center
Norfolk, VA 23510-1617
Work: 757-446-8600 Fax: 757-446-8670
Ms. Candyce D. Cavanagh, Esq.
Cavanagh, Richmond & Holmes, LLC
1301 Washington Avenue, Suite 350
Golden, CO 80401
Work: 720-221-9780 Fax: 720-221-9781
Kenneth E. Chadwick, Esq.
Chadwick, Washington, Moriarty, Elmore & B
9990 Lee Highway, Suite 200
Fairfax, VA 22030-1720
Work: 703-352-1900 Fax: 703-352-5293
Ms. Ellen Hirsch de Haan, Esq.
Becker & Poliakoff, P.A.
2401 West Bay Drive, Suite 414
Largo, FL 33770-1941
Work: 727-559-0588 Fax: 727-581-4063
Mr. Robert M. Diamond, Esq.
Reed Smith LLP
3110 Fairview Park Drive, Suite 1400
Falls Church, VA 22042-4503
Work: 703-641-4273 Fax: 703-641-4340
Raymond J. Diaz,
Rees, Broome & Diaz, P.C.
8133 Leesburg Pike, 9th Floor
Vienna, VA 22182-2706
Work: 703-790-1911 Fax: 703-848-2530
Mr. Joseph D. Douglass, Esq.
Whiteford, Taylor & Preston, L.L.P.
1025 Connecticut Ave. N.W. Suite 400
Washington, DC 20036-5405
Work: 202-659-6800 Fax: 202-331-0573
Ms. Tanis Duncan, Esq.
Law Office of Tanis Duncan
548 E. Speedway
Tucson, AZ 85705-7478
Work: 520-624-8730 Fax: 520-628-9752
Donald E. Dyekman, Esq.
Mariscal, Weeks, McIntyre & Friedlander
2901 N. Central Ave Suite 200
Phoenix, AZ 85012-2705
Work: 602-285-5018 Fax: 602-285-5100
Mr. Richard S. Ekimoto, Esq.
Elisha, Ekimoto & Harada
1132 Bishop Street, Suite 902
Honolulu, HI 96813-2830
Work: 808-523-0702 Fax: 808-538-1927
Curtis S. Ekmark, Esq.
Ekmark & Ekmark, L.L.C.
6720 North Scottsdale Road, Suite 261
Scottsdale, AZ 85253
Work: 480-922-9292 Fax: 480-922-9422
Seth Emmer, Esq.
Marcus, Errico, Emmer & Brooks, P.C.
45 Braintree Hill Office Park #107
Braintree, MA 02184-8723
Work: 781-843-5000 Fax: 781-843-1529
Jon H. Epsten, Esq.
Epsten Grinnell & Howell, APC
9980 Carroll Canyon Road, 2nd floor
San Diego, CA 92131
Work: 858-527-0111 Fax: 858-527-1531
V. Douglas Errico, Esq.
Marcus, Errico, Emmer & Brooks, PC
45 Braintree Hill Office Park, #107
Braintree, MA 02184-8723
Work: 781-843-5000 Fax: 781-843-1529
Dennis A. Estis, Esq.
Greenbaum, Rowe, Smith, Davis, LLP
P.O. Box 5600
Woodbridge, NJ 07095-0988
Work: 732-549-5600 Fax: 732-549-1881
Mr. Ross W. Feinberg, Esq.
Feinberg, Grant, Mayfield Kaneda & Litt, LL
1955 Village Center Circle
Las Vegas, NV 89134
Work: 702-947-4900 Fax: 702-947-4901
Mr. Jonathan Fine, Esq.
Fine & Deo
3100 Steeles Ave West, Suite 300
Vaughan, Ontario Canada, L4K 3R1
Work: 905-760-1800 Fax: 888-266-3655
Mr. Richard S. Fiore, Esq.
Fiore, Racobs & Powers
38 Technology Dr. #250
Irvine, CA 92618-2301
Work: 949-727-3111 Fax: 949-727-3311
Mr. Bruce Freeman. Esq.
Woehling & Freeman
50 Elmer Street
Westfield, NJ 07090-2184
Work: 908-232-3700 Fax: 908-232-7789
Joseph H. Ganguzza, Esq.
Hyman, Kaplan, Ganguzza, Spector & Mars
Musuem Tower 27th Floor
150 West Flagler Street
Miami, FL 33130
Work: 305-371-4244 Fax: 305-371-4105
Mr. Michael J. Gelfand,
Gelfand & Arpe, P.A.
1555 Palm Beach Lake Blvd
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Work: 561-655-6224 Fax:
Mr. Ronald Glazer, Esq.
Wolf, Block, Schorr & Solis-Cohen LLP
1650 Arch Street, 22nd Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19103-2097
Work: 215-977-2112 Fax: 215-405-3712
Allan Goldberg, Esq.
Arnstein & Lehr
120 South Riverside Plaza, Suite 1200
Chicago, IL 60606-3910
Work: 312-876-7133 Fax: 312-876-0288
Sandra L. Gottlieb, Esq.
Swedelson & Gottlieb
11900 West Olympic Blvd., Suite 700
Los Angeles, CA 90064
Work: 310-207-2207 Fax: 310-207-2115
George R. Grasser, Esq.
Phillips Lytle, LLP
3400 HSBC Center
Buffalo, NY 14203-2842
Work: 716-847-5491 Fax: 716-852-6100
Beth A. Grimm, Esq.
Beth A. Grimm, P.L.C.
3478 Buskirk Avenue, Suite 1000
Pleasant Hill, CA 94523-4344
Work: 925-746-7177 Fax: 925-215-8454
John Paul Hanna, Esq.
Law Offices of Hanna & Van Atta
525 University Avenue #705
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Work: 650-321-5700 Fax: 650-321-5639
Thomas J. Hindman, Esq.
Orten & Hindman, P.C.
11901 West 48th Avenue
Wheat Ridge, CO 80033-2166
Work: 303-432-9999 Fax: 303-432-0999
Mr. Lincoln W. Hobbs, Esq.
Hobbs & Olson, L.C.
525 South 300 East
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
Work: 801-519-2555 Fax: 801-519-2999
Ms. Mary M. Howell, Esq.
Epsten Grinnell & Howell, APC
44875 Deep Canyon Road, Suite 3
Palm Desert, CA 92260
Work: 858-527-0111 Fax: 858-527-1531
Wayne S. Hyatt, Esq.
Hyatt & Stubblefield
225 Peachtree Street, N.E., Suite #1200
Atlanta, GA 30303
Work: 404-659-6600 Fax: 404-658-1725
Mr. Michael L. Hyman, Esq.
Hyman & Kaplan, P.A.
Museum Tower 27th Floor
150 West Flagler Street
Miami, FL 33130
Work: 305-371-4244 Fax: 305-371-5930
Mark D. Imbriani, Esq.
Mark D. Imbriani, Attorney at Law
28 Maple Street
Somerville, NJ 08876-2954
Work: 908-722-9454 Fax: 908-704-7371
F. Scott Jackson, Esq.
Jackson DeMarco & Peckenpaugh
2030 Main Street, Suite 1200
Irvine, CA 92623-9704
Work: 949-851-7427 Fax: 949-752-0597
Ms. Lynn S. Jordan, Esq.
Powers Phillips, P.C.
700 17th Street, Suite 1600
Denver, CO 80202
Work: 303-382-4169 Fax: 303-293-8938
David W. Kaman, Esq.
Kaman & Cusimano
50 Public Square, Suite 600
Cleveland, OH 44113
Work: 216-696-0650 Fax: 216-771-8478
Mr. Michael S. Karpoff, Esq.
Hill Wallack, Attorneys At Law
202 Carnegie Center, CN 5226
Princeton, NJ 08543-5226
Work: 609-734-6376 Fax: 609-452-1888
Mr. Benny L. Kass, Esq.
Kass, Mitek & Kass P.L.L.C.
1050 17th St. NW, Suite 1100
Washington, DC 20036-5503
Work: 202-659-6500 Fax: 202-293-2608
E. Richard Kennedy, Esq.
Kennedy, Wronko & Kennedy
1330 Laurel Avenue
Sea Girt, NJ 08750
Work: 732-282-9100 Fax: 732-282-0664
Michael C. Kim, Esq.
Michael C. Kim & Associates
19 South LaSalle Street, Suite 303
Chicago, IL 60603
Work: 312-419-4000 Ext 11 Fax: 312-419-4008
Mr. Laurence E. Kinsolving, Esq,
Fairfield Resorts, Inc.
8427 South Park Circle
Orlando, FL 32819
Work: 407-370-6301 Fax: 407-370-6310
Mr. James P. Lingl, Esq.
James P. Lingl & Associates
1200 Paseo Camrillo # 160
Camarillo, CA 93010-6085
Work: 805-482-1903 Fax: 805-484-5917
Mark F. Makower, Esq.
Dickinson Wright, PLLC
38525 Woodward Avenue, Suite 200
Bloomfield Hills, MI 48303-0509
Work: 248-433-7505 Fax: 248-433-7274
Stephen M. Marcus, Esq.
Marcus, Errico, Emmer & Brooks, P.C.
45 Braintree Hill Office Park #107
Braintree, MA 02184-8723
Work: 781-843-5000 Fax: 781-849-9799
Mr. Marc D. Markel, Esq.
Roberts Markel Guerry, P.C.
2500 City West Blvd. Suite 1350
Houston, TX 77042
Work: 713-840-1666 Fax: 713-840-9404
Charles E. Maxwell, Esq.
Law Offices of Charles E. Maxwell, PC
1423 S. Higley Road #119
Mesa, AZ 85206
Work: 480-833-1001 Fax: 480-969-8267
Mr. Samuel J. McNulty, Esq.
Hueston, McNulty & Mueller
256 Columbia Tnpke., Ste. 207
Florham Park, NJ 07932-0009
Work: 973-377-0200 Fax: 973-377-6328
Mr. Robert M. Meisner, Esq.
Meisner & Associates PC
30200 Telegraph Rd., Suite #467
Bingham Farms, MI 48025-4506
Work: 248-644-4433 Fax: 248-644-2941
David S. Mercer, Esq.
Troutman Sanders, LLP
1660 International Dr Suite 600
McLean, VA 22102-3805
Work: 703-734-4370 Fax: 703-448-6515
Milton M. Motooka, Esq.
Motooka, Yamamoto & Revere
1000 Bishop Street, Suite 801
Honolulu, HI 96813
Work: 808-532-7900 Fax: 808-532-7911
P. Michael Nagle, Esq.
Nagle & Zaller, P.C.
10320 Little Patuxent Pkwy, Suite 1200
Columbia, MD 21044-3313
Work: 301-621-6500 Fax: 410-740-3183
Richard P. Neuland, Esq.
Neuland, Nordberg & Andrews
22502 Avenida Empressa, Ste. 5
Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688
Work: 949-766-4700 Fax: 949-766-4712
Marvin J. Nodiff, Esq.
Law Office of Marvin J. Nodiff
500 N. Skinker Blvd.
St. Louis, MO 63130
Work: 314-727-8989 x 11 Fax: 314-725-0066
George E. Nowack, Esq.
Weissman, Nowack, Curry & Wilco, PC
One Alliance Center, 4th Floor
3500 Lenox Road
Atlanta, GA 30326
Work: 404-926-4522 Fax: 404-926-4600
Jerry C.M. Orten, Esq.
Orten & Hindman, P.C.
11901 West 48th Avenue
Wheat Ridge, CO 80033-2166
Work: 303-432-9999 Fax: 303-432-0999
Mark D. Pearlstein, Esq.
Levenfeld Pearlstein, LLC
2 North LaSalle Street, Sutie 1300
Chicago, IL 60602
Work: 312-476-7520 Fax: 312-346-8434
Ronald L. Perl, Esq.
Hill Wallack, Attorneys At Law
202 Carnegie Center, CN 5226
Princeton, NJ 08543-5226
Work: 609-734-6349 Fax: 609-452-1888
Mr. Matthew N. Perlstein, Esq.
Law Office of Matthew N. Perlstein
10 Waterside Dr Suite 303
Farmington, CT 06032
Work: 860-677-2177 Fax: 860-677-1147
Gary A. Poliakoff, Esq.
Becker & Poliakoff, P.A.
3111 Stirling Road
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33312
Janet L.S. Powers, Esq.
Fiore, Racobs & Powers
38 Technology Dr. #250
Irvine, CA 92618-2301
Work: 949-727-3111 Fax: 949-727-3311
J. David Ramsey, Esq.
Ramsey Berman, P.C.
P.O. Box 2249
Morristown, NJ 07962-2249
Work: 973-267-9600 Fax: 973-984-1945
Katharine Rosenberry, Esq.
CA Western School of Law
225 Cedar Street
San Diego, CA 92101-3046
Work: 619-525-1433 Fax: 619-696-9999
Ms. Loura Sanchez, Esq.
Orten & Hindman, P.C.
11901 West 48th Avenue
Wheat Ridge, CO 80033-2166
Work: 303-432-9999 Fax: 303-432-0999
Daniel C. Shapiro, Esq.
Wolf, Rifkin, Shapiro & Schulman, LLP
11400 West Olympic Boulevard, 9th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90064-1565
Work: 310-478-4100 Fax: 310-478-6363
Jordan I. Shifrin,
Kovitz, Shifrin, Nesbit
750 Lake Cook Road, #350
Buffalo Grove, IL 60089
Work: 847-777-7254 Fax: 847-537-0550
Mr. William P. Sklar,
University of Miami School of Continuing Ed
P.O. Box 248087
Coral Gables, FL 33124
Work: 305-284-6276 Fax: 305-284-6277
Wendell A. Smith, Esq.
Greenbaum, Rowe, Smith, Davis, LLP
P.O. Box 5600
Woodbridge, NJ 07095-0988
Work: 732-549-5600 Fax: 732-549-1881
Mr. Curtis C. Sproul, Esq.
Weintraub, Genshlea, Chediak & Sproul
400 Capitol Mall, 11th Floor
Sacramento, CA 95814-4414
Work: 916-558-6037 Fax: 916-446-1611
Mr. James L. Strichartz, Esq.
Strichartz Morgenstern, PLLC
201 Queen Anne Avenue North, Suite 400
Seattle, WA 98109
Work: 206-388-0606 Fax: 206-286-2666
Mr. Steven L. Sugarman, Esq.
Steven L. Sugarman & Associates
1273 Lancaster Avenue
Berwyn, PA 19312
Work: 610-889-0700 Fax: 610-993-0498
Ms. Lucia Anna Trigiani, Esq.
Troutman Sanders, LLP
1660 International Dr Suite 600
McLean, VA 22102-3805
Work: 703-734-4378 Fax: 703-448-6516
David Van Atta, Esq.
Law Offices of Hanna & Van Atta
525 University Avenue #705
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Work: 650-321-5700 Fax: 650-321-5639
Jeffrey Van Grack, Esq.
Lerch, Early & Brewer Chartered
3 Bethesda Metro Center #460
Bethesda, MD 20814-5330
Work: 301-657-0159 Fax: 301-986-0332
Steve S. Weil, Esq.
Berding & Weil, LLP
3240 Stone Valley Road West
Alamo, CA 94507-1564
Work: 925-838-2090 Fax: 925-820-5592
Posted Jul 10 2005 1:13AM CEST
|
| |
|
| |
Marie Anderson
Los Angeles, California |
| |
|
|
| |
Home foreclosure over $123 debt to spark legal challenge
Dear Mr. Rathburn, Ms. Berger,
Dear Legislators, Friends and Members,
This case shows clearly what homeowners said all along: The CAI shouldn't have talked Governor Schwarzenegger into vetoing the CA anti-foreclosure bill AB2598. It would have stopped this ridiculous case -- and many others!
I fault the people, who talked Governor Schwarzenegger into vetoing this bill, for every case we will read about in the media -- week after week! I just hope these people can still sleep?
In North Carolina it was about $70, in California it's about $123 -- and the list will go on! Just the headlines from last week! Read the story at: http://www.ccfj.net/HOAforecl123.html
Donna Berger, attorney in the law firm of Becker&Poliakoff and spokesperson of CALL, another group connected to the CAI, just stated when talking about this veto:"Thankfully, more rational thinking prevailed and the California initiative was defeated." Great to know that she thinks that the majority of California's legislators is not thinking rational. Or did she forget that the bill in question passed the CA legislature -- House and Senate -- with a nearly unanimous vote? But, like usual, everybody not in agreement with the CAI party-line is accused of not thinking rational! Let's get used to it!
Homeowners' activists all over the nation were disgusted when the bill, supported by homeowners and consumers, was vetoed. But the CAI claimed victory.
Now the CAI is busy doing damage control. And they will be very busy since they are obviously unable to control their own members!
Homeowners all around the nation are getting sick and tired of hearing the stupid excuses from a trade organization that we feel is causing the problems in the first place. We homeowners don't want to hear "responses" from CEOs and more excuses. Since years we hear every time that it's just another insulated case and people speaking out are just a few disgruntled homeowners -- or dissidents! Families and retirees are losing their homes and we're hearing the same platitude.
And since the CEO of the CAI is so concerned about necessary education it would be about time that he starts with educating his own members!
I think it's time they send their brochures to their own members and ask them to read it! And if an association suffers hardship from a member not paying $70 or $123, they should look into other means of paying bills. May be cutting down on all the legal expenses?
Just read the press release below and start wondering: Is this really what our society stands for?
I'm absolutely against deadbeats, but would you call somebody, who didn't pay $123 in association dues -- or an elderly lady, who forgot to add $3,50 in late fees -- a deadbeat? But they were foreclosed upon!
If you agree, you might give Mr. Rathburn a call and let him know. He listed his telephone number below for that purpose -- I guess?
And since the CAI seems to be unable to stop its members, it's left to our legislators to protect the consumers and stop this abusive behavior. It's about time!
Just my opinion -- and on that note:
Happy Holidays!
Jan Bergemann
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Press Release: Community Associations Institute CEO Responds to Foreclosure Case
Community Associations Institute CEO Responds to Foreclosure Case
Friday December 10, 20045:58 pm ET
ALEXANDRIA, Va., Dec. 10 /PRNewswire/ --
Thomas M. Skiba, Chief Executive Officer,
Community Associations Institute, responds to "Home foreclosure over $123 debt to spark legal challenge" (Chico Enterprise Record, December 9, 2004):
* This case reinforces the continuing need for education and effective communication, both for the volunteers and professionals involved in community association governance and for individual homeowners. CAI is doing its part to create principles and practices designed to prevent miscommunication, misunderstanding and miscalculation.
* Nobody wants to foreclose on a home, not a bank, not a lender and certainly not a community association. That's why foreclosure should always be used as a last resort, applied only after all other reasonable measures have failed.
* People occasionally face financial hardship -- a lost job, for instance -- and in those cases many community associations do work with homeowners to develop deferred or special payment plans.
* CAI is committed to working with homeowners, lenders, consumer advocates and government officials in California and elsewhere to address this type of unfortunate situation.
* Rather than becoming embroiled in individual disputes, CAI's mission is to foster effective, harmonious and competent community associations. That is the purpose behind everything we do, from providing education courses and publications to advocating for community association governance that is rational, reasonable and responsible.
* The delivery of services in a community association -- from maintenance and landscaping to trash services and street lighting -- depends on all residents meeting their obligations. Residents who don't pay their assessments -- as they contractually agreed to do when they purchased their homes -- are cheating their neighbors, their community and themselves. When some homeowners are delinquent, either their neighbors must make up the difference or services and amenities must be curtailed. That affects everyone in the community, perhaps even leading to a decline in property values.
CAI is a national, nonprofit organization dedicated to fostering vibrant, responsive, competent community associations. The 16,000-member organization, which includes 55 regional, state and local chapters, represents professional community managers, community association volunteer leaders (homeowners), management companies, and businesses and professionals who serve these communities. Member services include educational resources, advocacy, professional designations, books and periodicals, conferences and seminars. More than 50 million Americans live in an estimated 260,000 homeowner and condominium associations, cooperatives and other planned communities.
Foreclosure is among the principles included in Rights and Responsibilities for Better Communities, series of practices and principles advocated by CAI and adopted by community associations nationwide. For more information, go to http://www.caionline.org.
CONTACT: Frank Rathbun, Work: +1-703-797-6261, or Home:
+1-703-256-7731, or FRathbun@caionline.org.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted Jun 8 2005 8:17AM CEST
|
| |
|
| |
Username withheld
Los Angeles, California |
| |
|
|
| |
Mr. Durso's paper, "The War on Foreclosures" is remarkable. 4281 words to basically defend the status quo. He misses the point in fourteen words, "Many Property Owner Association members believe that some actions by POAs including foreclosures are not fair."
Even though the paper is published in Common Ground and Mr. Durso does describe a number of possible changes, but in the end does not recommend any of them - common ground. The paper does provide an alternate perspective on some of the POA cases that have received much attention in the press and within the action groups. This additional information should be considered by everyone, and helps to explain why some proposals have not been enacted by legislatures.
Mr. Durso does not seem to understand that many people perceive there are problems with the governance of POAs. From their perspective of the community associations industry (lawyers, accountants, property management companies, maintenance and repair providers, insurance entities, reserve specialists), the problem is collection of the money from POA members in the form of dues and assessments to pay these organizations, many of whom are members of CAI.
Some statistics from Mr. Durso's paper are interesting. Out of the 4281 words in the paper, the following are the number of times various words important to POA members were used:
democracy: 0
democratic: 0
rights: 0
fairness: 0
appeal: 0
fair and equitable: 1
obligation: 2
industry (meaning the community associations industry): 9
The focus is clear; Mr. Durso's paper is not concerned about democratic processes and members' rights.
Community Associations Institute
This focus is also clear at CAI's website. A search on "democracy" yielded 5 documents, only two of which were reports; on "democratic" yielded 2 documents, both in the search on "democracy." Because of limitations of the search engine at the CAI website, I was unable to search on "members' rights" and other terms important to POA members.
But I was able to conduct a search of their undated 71-page paper, "Public Policies." The search results for some of the terms listed above as related to POA members are:
democracy: 0
democratic: 0
rights: not definitive, the word is used in many different ways, needs further study
fairness: 0; unfairness was used once in connection with liens.
appeal: 1
fair and equitable: 1 plus a repeat of same usage
obligation: 15 (6 are obligations of the POA member; 9 are for the board and/or POA)
industry (meaning the community associations industry): 16 total (financial 2; insurance 8; development/housing 4; community association 1; utility 1).
This again indicates the focus of CAI activities and interests.
Unfortunately, the rights and interests of POA members do not appear to be primary, yet the POA members provide the money to make the industry function.
In the section on Rights and Responsibilities, the distribution of rights and obligations follows the same pattern:
Members: 1 right; 11 obligations (no rights concerning democracy, protection of rights under the constitutions and governing documents)
Associations: 3 rights, 11 obligations (obligations do not include any on protecting the rights of members and/or owners under the constitution and governing documents, but does include an obligation for members' appeals).
An excerpt from the section on policy for Alternative Dispute Resolution, reads "It is also understood that ADR may not be the ideal option for resolving a dispute but if possible should be used if it does not compromise the rights of the community association." There is no such statement about not compromising the rights of POA members in ADR.
But CAI is changing, POAs will no longer be accepted as members as associations, but memberships will be extended to POA members including board members on an individual basis. From CAI's Dec 1, 2004, press release, "The size of the CAI Board of Trustees has been reduced from 24 to 14 members as part of a new, more streamlined governance structure. Under the new structure, the board must include representation from each of CAI's three primary member groups: managers and management companies, community association volunteers, and product and service providers." The composition of the 2005 board is 3 homeowners, 2 POA managers, 3 attorneys, 1 insurance agent/company, 1 reserve specialist, 3 property management companies, and 1 bank. POA members (those who pay the money to fund the industry) have three seats, the community associations industry (those who receive the POA money) have 11.
The statistics described above help to explain the perspective and interests of CAI and why the interests and rights of POA members seem low on the priority list.
Common Ground
A good source of common ground is to adopt what works - namely similar rights, obligations, benefits, protections for citizens in municipalities. Collection of dues and assessments is similar to collection of property taxes. POA members should have the same protections with regard to foreclosure of property for nonpayment of dues and assessments as citizens of municipalities do for nonpayment of property taxes. Fines assessed to POA members for violations of restrictions are similar to citations assessed to citizens of municipalities for ordinance violations. With regard to citations, there is a separation of powers, which POAs typically don't have. The board should not be "judge, jury and executioner." An independent review with a mechanism for appeal should be provided to POA members. Collection methods for fines without the possibility of foreclosure of property should be provided. I believe the bill recently introduced in New Jersey has such provisions. POAs also need means of collection - particularly since there are always some "deadbeats" who push everything to the limit. What makes the above happen for municipalities is a body of state law which provides the umbrella of rights and protections for citizens and authorities for the municipalities to be able to meet their obligations.
A second part is to address the governing documents. Typically, the initial set of governing documents is drafted by the developer. Since it is unreasonable to expect that developers will be champions of democracy for POA members, the umbrella state law governing POAs should have very specific requirements for content in the initial governing documents to ensure members' rights and protections.
A third part concerns disclosure requirements. Often, people by homes in POAs without ever reading the governing documents. The disclosure must occur well before closing - perhaps with a requirement that the buyer sign off on having read the documents. Real estate agents should also be required to be part of the disclosure process and certification.
Those are some of my thoughts. I will be interested in reading others. Thanks for reading this.
Michigan Property Oowners Association Member
Posted May 20 2005 11:43PM CEST
|
| |
|
| |
Donald L Nordeen
, Michigan |
| |
|
|
| |
The War on Foreclosure
Common Ground, July/August 2004
by Christopher Durso
Spurred on by several well-publicized, controversial cases, state legislatures are considering more and more limits on association foreclosures. But do they need that kind of scrutiny?
The stories sound terrible, especially when they're related in the bold, broad strokes that encourage outrage. In Calaveras County, California, a retiree who fell behind on a year's worth of dues to his homeowner association-$120 in all-had his house and three acres of property sold at auction last December.
Two months before, in October, an association in Gilbert, Arizona, moved to foreclose on a single mother who was battling breast cancer and owed $393 in overdue assessments. Down in Jupiter, Florida, a Marine veteran is facing the loss of his home for $20,000 in legal fees and other charges he owes his association after unsuccessfully fighting to keep a 12-foot flagpole in his front yard. And, of course, back in 2001, there was Wenonah Blevins, the elderly widow who started out owing her Harris County, Texas, association $814.50 in back dues, lost her house, got it back, and became a poster child for the victims of abusive HOAs.
But when you peek beneath the surface of these cases, and set aside the immediate, visceral reaction provoked by any tale of a person losing his home, things get fuzzy, and so does the entire debate over community associations and foreclosure.
The California retiree, for example, simply overlooked his payments for a year-even though, as required by law, the association sent him several notices about possible foreclosure, and its collection service says it tried to collect from him dozens of times. And the Marine in Florida has been clinging to his flagpole for several years now, running up everyone's legal bills in the process-even though he's always been free to fly a flag from a bracket on his house.
The bold, broad strokes shock and appall, but the smaller, closer details confuse and contradict, and prompt a host of questions. Who has the greater obligation-the owner, who has agreed to pay assessments to the association in a timely manner, or the association, which is bound to collect assessments in a fair and equitable way?
Does the association's duty to provide services to the entire community always trump its commitment to individual owners? And, are these messy, high-profile foreclosures the norm, or just anomalies that have inflamed people already suspicious of homeowner associations?
TELL IT TO THE LEGISLATURE
You can get lost in the fog of these and other legitimate questions surrounding association foreclosure, starting with the biggest and most basic one of all: Why do associations have this power granted very few entities in American society-the power to take someone's home?
"At some point, the responsibility has to be on the person who's not paying their assessment," says Dan Shapiro, Esq., a partner with Wolf, Rifkin, Shapiro, & Schulman, LLP, in Los Angeles, which represents more than 2,000 associations and management companies. "If the law firm or the trustee that is doing the collecting is following the rules and the person is just not doing what they're supposed to be doing-paying-what alternative is left to the association? If they don't proceed with the foreclosure and the word gets out they're not proceeding with the foreclosure, why would [other
owners] pay?
People are going to stop paying, and then the association is really in a fix." That's especially true for smaller communities that depend on their assessment income. "Say you're in a condominium, and it's a master-metered condominium, meaning the association also pays the electric," says Margey Meyer, CMCA, PCAM, president of Prime Site Inc., AAMC, in
Houston. "You're talking about fees that could be $800 or $1,000 a month. So those delinquencies add up quickly, and the association can really get hurt if you let it go too long."
Pat Haruff, who is the president of an Arizona-based group called Concerned Homeowners for Reform and Education (CHORE), doesn't think much of that argument. In fact, she thinks the association industry is something of a Chicken Little, constantly warning about widespread homeowner rebellion and financial dissolution when in fact very few communities ever declare bankruptcy. "You're always going to have [people who don't pay what they're supposed to]," Haruff says. "That's why we pay more for our clothes, for our
cars, for our electricity. There are just people in life, no matter what it is, they're just not responsible and they're not going to pay. I just don't believe that will ever change."
Trying to stake out a middle ground on this issue is difficult, but among the groups that have tried is CAI, whose position is rooted in the idea that assessments protect property values by funding the delivery of tangible services, including maintenance, trash pickup, and landscaping, not to mention amenities. According to CAI President Paul Grucza, CMCA, AMS, PCAM, while legitimate financial hardships should never be ignored, owners who are able to pay their assessments but don't are cheating their neighbors, and the process of foreclosure is often the only leverage associations have to ensure they fulfill their obligation.
That said, says Grucza, vice president and chief financial officer of Consolidated Community Management, AAMC, in Tamarac, Florida: "Foreclosure should always be the avenue of last resort after exhausting every other means available to protect the debt owed to the community."
While these and other questions are plentiful and definitive answers elusive, the debate has inspired state legislatures across the country to act, in many cases spurred on by groups like CHORE that claim money-hungry associations-and their attorneys-are simply running foreclosure mills. The issue has been particularly hot in Arizona, California, and Florida, all of which have introduced legislation this year that would limit associations' power to foreclose.
Not surprisingly, they all follow Texas, which had its own legislative reckoning with association foreclosure three years ago, in the immediate aftermath of the Blevins case. The result was the Texas Residential Property Owners Protection Act, also known as the Wenonah Blevins Act, which among other things prohibits homeowner associations-but not condominiums-from foreclosing solely to collect fines or attorney's fees based on fines, limits attorney's fees for nonjudicial foreclosures, and gives owners 180 days to buy back their house after foreclosure, a guarantee known as the right of redemption.
Various measures before the Arizona, California, and Florida legislatures have similar aims, though their scope varies widely.
Arizona. Gilbert Mayor Steve Berman told the East Valley Tribune that State Rep. Eddie Farnsworth was "livid" over the plight of Evelyn Lyles, the breast-cancer patient who faced foreclosure last year. (Eventually her home was saved by an anonymous donor who paid off the dues and fees she owed.)
And, sure enough, this year Farnsworth introduced a bill that in its original form would have prohibited all condo and HOA foreclosures until seven years after a delinquency started, and would have banned outright foreclosures for fines. Scott Carpenter, Esq., a senior partner with Carpenter & Hazlewood and chair of CAI's Arizona Legislative Action Committee (LAC), says the LAC balked at the seven-year moratorium but approved of the fines provision. Meanwhile, CHORE championed the entire bill. Eventually, a modified version reducing the moratorium to three years and lifting the fines provision for associations that maintain limited common elements was introduced. It passed the House and the Senate; as of press time, it was awaiting the governor's signature.
California.
Here, the state legislature's discussions have occurred in the shadow of the Calaveras County case, in which Thomas and Anita Radcliff started out owing their association $120, which with late fees and collection charges ballooned to nearly $2,000; their property, which had been appraised at $280,000, was sold at auction for $70,000. In February, the Radcliffs' son testified before the Senate Housing and Community Development Committee as the legislature considered proposals to ban nonjudicial foreclosures for less than $2,500 in delinquent assessments and require that properties be sold for at least their appraised value.
As of press time, the legislature was still considering these proposals, the authors of which were discussing amendments with CAI's California LAC and other players.
Florida
Amid this year's legislative proposals were a host of measures recommended by a Homeowners' Association Task Force convened by Gov. Jeb Bush, who two years ago visited George Andres, the flagpole-planting ex-Marine, on Flag Day and donated $100 to his defense fund. (Andres faces foreclosure for the tens of thousands he owes his association, but a judge has suspended the proceeding and ordered the sides to try once more to settle the dispute.)
While activist groups like Cyber Citizens for Justice (CCFJ) have advocated minimum foreclosure limits, the bill most relevant to association foreclosure would prevent homeowner associations from foreclosing for fines, which Florida condominium associations are already forbidden from doing, and-in a provision introduced by CAI's Florida Legislative Alliance-require HOAs to provide at least 14 days' notice of board meetings at which special assessments will be discussed.
As of press time, the bill had passed both houses but had yet to be sent to Bush for signing.
HOW MUCH IS TOO MUCH?
With all these legislative remedies swirling around, you wonder, are association foreclosures so prevalent, and so routinely abused, that such sweeping measures are necessary? Or is it not coincidental that each of the three legislatures presides over a state that has witnessed a sensationally publicized association foreclosure proceeding within the last year?
It's difficult to say, because exact numbers are hard to come by. While a recent survey from the Mortgage Bankers Association found a nationwide decrease in mortgage delinquencies and a slight increase in foreclosures, it doesn't sort its information by housing type. Indeed, there doesn't seem to be any central clearinghouse that tracks association foreclosures nationally.
Instead, each side is left to make its own case. Not long after the Blevins detonation, for example, Beanie Adolph, a Houston activist who says she and her two sons reviewed more than 15,000 association foreclosure cases in Harris County between 1985 and 2001, unveiled an online database that shows a tripling in HOA foreclosure lawsuits filed during that time period.
Anti-HOA forces took it as evidence that association attorneys were becoming increasingly predatory, while industry professionals suggested the rise in lawsuits corresponded to a rise in the number of association homes being built in and around Houston.
Around the same time, Clifford J. Treese, CIC, CPCU, ARM, CIRMS, was crunching his own numbers. A veteran association industry theorist (and former national president of CAI), Treese took preliminary information from Adolph's study published in the Houston Chronicle, compared it to mortgage foreclosures nationwide, and found the rates of both association and mortgage foreclosures hovered around 0.37 percent. For Treese, president of Association Information Services, association foreclosures are a red herring hiding the real issue: money.
In every foreclosure, whether by an association, a bank, or a county government looking to collect back taxes, there is a debt to be paid, and Treese thinks the debate needs to shift away from who's foreclosing and toward better lending practices and credit counseling. "The thing that causes a twang in the heartstring is somebody-whether it's a widow or not-losing their home," Treese says. "The cure is money. Pay the debt."
Other industry professionals as well as experienced board members offer anecdotal evidence that foreclosures aren't out of line. Margey Meyer, a former chair of CAI's Texas LAC, says that in the 25 years Prime Site has been in business, the company has foreclosed on no more than 1 homes-despite the relative ease of foreclosing in Texas which allows nonjudicial proceedings.
Likewise, Jerry Paluha, president of the 817-home Springs Community Homeowners Association, in Rancho Mirage, California, says there have been foreclosures during his time on the board-but they've been instigated by banks and mortgage companies. "I'm not going to say it doesn't happen, and there are probably some very egregious cases," Paluha says. "But that's probably the major exception to the rule. I have never seen and I don't see where foreclosure is a big problem."
Instead, industry observers in battleground states like Arizona and Florida think any problem with association foreclosures is largely one of perception, with increasingly organized advocacy groups wringing whatever shock value they can from the issue. "There are a group of people in this state who characterize themselves as homeowner advocates, and what they really are is anti-association," says Paul Wean, Esq., the managing shareholder of Wean & Malchow, P.A., in Orlando, and chair of the Florida Legislative Alliance. "And, unfortunately, by dint of repetition, they've gotten the ear of some people in government. These people are driving the agenda at this point."
One of the people Wean is talking about is CCFJ President Jan Bergemann, who sat on Florida's Homeowners' Association Task Force and takes pains to point out that he lives in a homeowner association. He insists that his
organization isn't reflexively anti-association. "We're against deadbeats," he says. But, he adds, "Our opinion is that the rules and regulations, or statutes, or whatever you call it, don't protect the consumer enough. We feel it is just unbelievable that people can lose their home for a real small amount of money."
Likewise, Haruff serves on the board of her 2,685-unit community in Mesa, which she says allows her to "speak from both sides." Her group, she says, isn't anti-HOA but rather pro-homeowner.
But Carpenter, who frequently squares off against Haruff, says CHORE and other organizations like it seem to coalesce around the foreclosure issue, and use it to tarnish the entire industry. "We have thousands and thousands of people who live in associations in Arizona who aren't saying one word about it one way or the other," he says. "There are a handful of people who feel strongly about foreclosure who think it's bad [and] who are very vocal....
The best I can tell, there's no more than a dozen or two dozen
people who are leading the anti-HOA movement." For them, he says, foreclosure is "so big, it's like it's the only issue."
IT'S IN THE WAY THAT THEY USE IT
Activists don't disagree with that. Truth be told, however, Haruff says she doesn't think association foreclosures themselves are that big of a problem. Although the process varies from state to state, the standard procedure is fairly cut-and-dried.
Once an association has sent out its own reminder letters, warning notices, and certified demands to a delinquent owner, it turns the matter over to a lawyer, who sends one or two more certified letters. Assuming the owner still hasn't paid, the attorney files a lawsuit seeking court approval for the association to foreclose on the lien, there's a trial before a judge or jury, and, if there's a verdict in favor of the association, the house is foreclosed on and sold at auction.
Proceeds go first to pay what's owed to the association, with the remainder of the money going to the owner. If the party who bought the house at auction wants the owner to leave, there's a separate eviction proceeding that has nothing to do with the association.
All this might be fine, Haruff says, except it almost never happens that way. "What happens is, the actual foreclosure never comes to fruition," Haruff says, "the reason being that the homeowner is intimidated and threatened with the loss of their home if they don't pay the fine for leaving their garbage can out too long or planting a shrub that's the wrong size."
If a homeowner ignores or overlooks the fine, an attorney usually gets involved, and next thing you know a $100 fine has turned into a $5,000 debt. "That's where the problem really lies," Haruff says, "in this intimidation and threats with these fines." There's also the fact, she says, that foreclosed homes are often sold for a fraction of their appraised value. It's all too much, too fast.
Haruff is echoed by Rob Edwards, a legislative aide to Texas Sen. Jon Lindsay, who chaired a subcommittee that heard testimony about association behavior. "I think what we found was that the actual loss of property was not a problem," Edwards says. "What was a problem was the threat and subsequent attorney fees that accompany that threat that were a little out of line with what we thought was reasonable for associations."
Indeed, the more people you talk to, the more it becomes clear that the issue is less that association foreclosures happen; rather, it's how they happen. In states that allow nonjudicial foreclosures, including Texas and California, the howls of outrage can be particularly loud.
The perception is that associations use nonjudical proceedings-which are also performed by attorneys but don't involve lawsuits or oversight by the courts-to railroad through foreclosure after foreclosure.
But in fact, Meyer notes, associations usually use them because they're faster than full-blown legal proceedings and cost about a quarter as much. They're particularly attractive to associations on a tight budget. And the savings is even passed along to the homeowner whose house is being foreclosed on, because there aren't as many attorney's fees that accumulate.
So in places like Texas, where you can go either way, which type is used more often-judicial or nonjudicial? "I'd say it's a pretty good toss-up," says Marc D. Markel, Esq., a partner with Roberts Markel Guery PC, in Houston. "A lot of people prefer judicial foreclosure because you have a judge looking over the documents."
To the larger question of their role in association collections and foreclosures and the fees they charge, industry attorneys say they're simply following the law-a growing tangle that includes the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, state condominium and homeowner association acts, and various statutes, plus their communities' governing documents. In every case, they say, if an association and its attorney are doing it right, they're following the law-even when you're talking about Wenonah Blevins.
In many ways, the Blevins case is emblematic of the entire foreclosure debate, because it cuts both ways and, three years after the fact, offers no easy answers. On the surface, it seems to make the activists' points about insidious fees and outrageous resales-with interest and other charges, the $814.50 Blevins owed in back assessments swelled to several thousand dollars, and eventually her $150,000 house was sold at auction for $5,000.
But the Blevins foreclosure also makes the association's case, because it was technically correct; the association and its attorney sent Blevins every notice they were supposed to, as required by law, and then some. But then, at the very least, doesn't it highlight the abuse potential inherent in the nonjudicial model? Well, no, because even though the association had that option, it decided to file a lawsuit.
But then the pendulum swings back to the activists' side, because Blevins claimed she never once heard from the association; she didn't get any of the delinquency or foreclosure notices, including the foreclosure lawsuit.
But then the pendulum swings the other way again, because, according to Markel-who didn't handle any of the collection or foreclosure proceedings but represented the association afterward, when Blevins sued-the process server who delivered the lawsuit to Blevins couldn't make personal contact with her but used duct tape to attach the documents to her front door, and even took a photo of that.
No easy answers. Not even when you hear that Blevins settled her lawsuit with the association for an undisclosed sum, and that the association bought her house from the purchaser and gave it back to her.
You wonder, did they have to do that? Could they have saved themselves a ton of legal fees and hate mail by doing more up front? "What else could they have done?" wonders Meyer, whose company wasn't involved in the case, but who debated Blevins' attorney, Marian Rosen, on local TV. "Contacted her relatives? Does our duty stop with the owner, or are we obligated to find someone who understands the implications of the issue? Are we our neighbor's keeper?"
In the end, Meyer says, "[The association] did everything right in the foreclosure, other than realize the lady is [82] years old."
NOT-SO-QUICK FIXES
One final question, also probably unanswerable: Does foreclosure need to be fixed, fine-tuned, or otherwise reformed? People who say no think, first of all, that the system works fine, and that any attempt to scale it back would be redundant, because good associations already treat their residents with sensitivity and respect. "There are many sad cases," Scott Carpenter says, "and the hope is that the board and the management company will respond to each case separately, as we do here."
Cliff Treese thinks the notion of foreclosure reform is misleading, even insulting. "If you look for the primary cure to be in the association's behavior," Treese says, "it's the wrong focus." A contract is a contract, and that's what owners have with their associations, and vice versa.
Adds Carpenter: "Why is the association any worse than the local hospital suing a person for an unpaid hospital visit? It's because people want to believe that the neighborhood is still a friendly place. And foreclosure's not friendly." But, he says, you can't forget that "this whole thing started with an owner who does not pay. So putting the burden of being nice on the association kind of presumes the owner is innocent."
On the other side of the equation, industry professionals and activists alike have some ideas for softening, focusing, tweaking, or overhauling foreclosure.
Right of redemption. Last year, Texas Sen. Lindsay tried unsuccessfully to extend HOA homeowners' new 180-day right of redemption. His aide, Rob Edwards, says Lindsay might try again next year. Similarly, Markel would like to see the right of redemption for condominium owners expanded.
Currently, condo owners have 90 days to buy back their home from their association but no guaranteed right if a third party buys it.
Minimum limits. Jan Bergemann, the Florida activist, has been trying to sell state legislators on minimum foreclosure limits whereby a homeowner association could only foreclose on an owner who owed a certain amount of money. (Bergemann doesn't favor the same limit for condominiums because their expenses, including utilities, are often more urgent.) "I think if somebody forgets to pay $100 or $200," Bergemann says, "they shouldn't lose their home for it." But some associations simply don't like the idea of their hands being tied, especially by a generous foreclosure limit. "To go
and say you can't foreclose until $5,000 or $25,000," say Jerry Paluha, the California board president, "even our association, which is on a pretty even keel, could get into [financial] trouble."
Escrow.
His "wrong focus" quote notwithstanding, Treese does think there's room to improve how association collections are handled. Mortgage companies, he says, should escrow assessments, like they do with property taxes. "That takes care of the vast majority of foreclosure issues," he says. According to Meyer, maintenance fees used to be escrowed until the early 1980s, when there were a lot of foreclosures and mortgage companies didn't want to be responsible for paying the fees. "If [mortgage companies] escrowed for
maintenance fees," Meyer says, "let them be the heavies."
Garnishing and eviction.
In some states, associations or their agents can garnish the wages and bank accounts of a delinquent homeowner, or even evict an owner without actually selling the house. Where associations can't do that, assessment collection can be more of an all-or-nothing game, with the stakes being house and home.
Personal contact.
There's also the idea of an association having mandatory
personal communication with an owner before foreclosing. Again, the Blevins case is the textbook example here, showing how poorly a foreclosure can be perceived when there's no face-to-face contact. But the industry is split on
this issue.
Markel's office, for example, has a detailed internal procedure
that must be followed before a property can be foreclosed on. "One of those steps," Markel says, "is personal contact with the homeowner, and that's close to the sale, not up front during collection."
But Carpenter is leery of requiring face time because emotions can run very high in these situations. "Enough people have opened the door and spit on board members and even waved guns in their face," he says, "a lot of board members are unwilling to do that."
No fines.
There's also the idea of foreclosing only for past-due
assessments, not for fines-meaning it would be owners' failure to pay dues and not their flouting of, say, architectural guidelines that would cost them their homes. Florida has considered such a law, much to Bergemann's delight, and in Arizona, Carpenter says that would be okay with him and the
LAC.
Good boards.
Perhaps the most telling thing about the entire foreclosure
ssue is that, in the end, everyone on every side-attorneys, managers, activists-returns the debate to the people who are responsible for foreclosing on their residents: association boards. "We need to figure out how to force boards to be informed," Haruff says. "[My association] handle[s] over a million dollars a year, and there are people who don't have
any clue as to what's going on." But those who do are keenly aware of the responsibility they hold.
"To go into foreclosure with a neighbor," Paluha says, "is one of the worst things you have to do as a neighbor. And we're
still all neighbors. So that's not something I would rush to."
Christopher Durso is the editor of Common Ground - A Commonity Associations Institute Trade Publication
Posted May 16 2005 3:13AM CEST
|
| |
|
| |
Username withheld
, California |
| |
|
|
| |
I too was duped by the CAI. I looked to them when I started having problems with our Property Owner's Association.
I even ordered some publications from them, hoping that they would help me deal with my Association. I called their office, expecting to get recommendations on good law firms that might successfully represent me in a lawsuit.
That was like asking the fox what I could do to protect the chickens.
They gave me the names of some good law firms. Of course, none of them were able to represent me because they were already representing my Property Owner's Association.
Posted Oct 23 2004 4:24AM CEST
|
| |
|
| |
Hilary Day
(View Profile)
Nellysford, Virginia |
| |
|
|
| |
----------
From:Monica Sadler
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 10:20:31 EDT
To: MFoley-Healy - CAI Governmental Affairs
Cc:Homeowner Advocates,Legislators Media
Subject:From CAI National -- DO NOT SEND Copies of E-mails to CAI Officials?
Dear Molly A. Foley-Healy (a.k.a. Vice President and General Counsel -- Community Associations Institute) --
Thank you for your e-mail (pasted below).
-----------------------------
Hi Monica,
Please refrain from copying me on your emails.
Best Regards,
Molly
Molly A. Foley-Healy
Vice President, Government & Public Affairs and General Counsel
Community Associations Institute
225 Reinekers Lane, Suite 300
Alexandria, VA 22314
Direct Line: 703-797-6266
FAX: 703-548-9543
Email:xxxx@caionline.org
------------------------
Molly, as a mere "individual homeowner member of CAI" please forgive me for ever thinking that anyone at CAI National would be interested in the trial and prosecution of numerous criminal complaints against one of CAI's member associations in Illinois (the Oak Run Property Owners Association, in Dahinda, Illinois).
These criminal actions are a direct result of misadvise by one of CAI's member attorneys (John W. Robertson, Galesburg, Illinois). During "Shoptalk" sessions with CAI member attorneys, who have distinguished themselves in the practice of community association law, this misconduct has been acknowledged to be blatant "malpractice."
Florida officials SHOULD be made aware of the failure of CAI's "educational programs" (directed at homeowners/boards) BEFORE investing hundreds of
thousands of dollars with CAI.
In light of your e-mail, I will not be renewing my membership in CAI -- (even though I joined the first time back in the mid-80's). I would strongly encourage all other individual homeowner members of CAI to rethink their own support of CAI in the future.
I would strongly encourage all Individual members of CAI to review CAI's ongoing anti-consumer efforts in every state (including, but not limited to CAI's efforts to make changes to the FDCPA, that would exempt attorneys who represent HOAs and collect "debts").
Further, due to your statements (made VERY publicly in Washington, D.C., November 2003) about property rights advocates like myself --perhaps, our elected officials in every state, who are finally starting to take many HOA issues seriously, should reexamine the "legislative activity" of CAI.
I'd strongly suggest that YOU -- and all other CAI officials -- refrain from name-calling and/or suggesting that there is something wrong with homeowner advocates who, in ever increasing numbers, find themselves on "the other aside" of CAI -- or the rogue Boards of CAI's member associations, and pettifogging attorney members of CAI.
The rhetoric and name-calling by CAI officials and their high profile members -- is almost as offensive as the arrogance of those CAI attorney members who believe legislators like Rep. Eddie Farnsworth (AZ) - are either "stupid" or "liars". (Maybe CAI should give that Arizona attorney member of CAI another award for his legislative efforts?)
While YOU, and many of CAI's Trustees, may strenuously object to our legislators "meddling in HOA affairs" in order to protect homeowners (in every state), I can guarantee you that the tide is turning.
Please don't expect educated homeowner advocates -- who CAI labels as "the enemy," disgruntled malcontents" (and/or "irrational people" -- YOUR own very public observation) -- to go away any time soon.
Molly, the tide is turning -- and please don't expect those of us who you think have only "one oar in the water" to save you from drowning...
We should have all been working together -- just like CAI's founding fathers planned... Clearly, that will never happen as it does not serve the financial interests of CAI's attorney member "stakeh$lders"?
Molly, in closing, please accept my deepest apology to have forwarded my e-mail to you. I am so sorry to have bothered you, Counselor. I'll take my concerns elsewhere -- and I will look forward to seeing you in Washington, D.C. in the very near future.
Respectfully,
Monica J. Sadler
P.S. Please note, my further apolgy, as I may have incorrectly assumed that there is a "delete" button on your computer (which is available for use on unwanted mail) in addition to whatever "blocking" features you so desire?
Posted Oct 22 2004 5:53PM CEST
|
| |
|
| |
Username withheld
, California |
| |
|
| | | |
