Email

Complaints

User Account

Login/Logout

Search

Talk Back

Tools

Information about Arizona Republic Arizona Republic 200 E. Van Buren Street - P.O. Box 2244 Phoenix, Arizona 85004 [ Phone: (602) 444-8000     Fax: (602) 444-8933. http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/ Rank: No ranking. Summary: A reporter Jessica Wanke called AHRC on July 20, 2004 for information Arizona Republic uses CAI foreclosure lawyers Christopher Combs and Augustus H Shaw IV - Arizona HOA Guy to do a homeowner advice columns Other Information: (800) 331-9303 outside the Phoenix metro area Fax press releases to newsroom at (602) 444-8044 or Mail to: The Arizona Republic Newsroom, 200 E. Van Buren St., Mail Code NM19, Phoenix, AZ 85004. Email newstips@arizonarepublic.com or call the newsroom at (602) 444-6397.

4. I am a reporter with The Arizona Republic and would like to talk to homeowner about her fines     Re: $17,000 parking fine by heartless Arizona homeowner association board members and their greedy lawyer - Deathly ill son, who has had numerous cardiac surgeries at Mayo Clinic, parked his car on their own private driveway I am a reporter with The Arizona Republic working on a story about homeowners who have problems with their Homeowner Associations - I would like to talk to you or your friend about her problem with the Homeowner Association fines. Please call me at (480)385-7508 or feel free to have her call me. Thanks! Cary Aspinwall August 10, 2005 Posted Aug 14 2005 3:58AM CEST     AHRC Staff (View Profile) , California   3. Mr. Comb's slanted response to his interpretation of the real estate disclosure form requirement in the Arizona Republic     In light of Mr. Combs slanted response to his interpretation of the real estate disclosure form requirement, is the Arizona Republic part of CBS? Is Dan Rather part of your reporting team? Posted Nov 13 2004 11:56PM CET     Username withheld Cave Creek, Arizona   2. Special for The Republic by Christopher Combs     To: Christopher Combs I am always amazed at the "license" the newsprint media takes to change things, in this case, to suit Mr. Combs message. I posted this link this morning, in fact I was amazed to see it in the Republic. The communication of the second question is from me and I wrote to Christopher Combs in August (the 23rd to be exact). It was NOT a letter to be published but since he has chosen to print it, he should have used ALL of my email to him and ALL of his answer back to me. So in the interest of TRUTH which I know there is a serious shortage of when it comes to the industry and especially those in the "industry" who hate it when we make sense. Mr. Combs did not play fair in only using parts of my email and only parts of his answer. So to all you homeowner advocates out there I am attaching ALL of the email exchanges between Combs and myself. I would also like to note that Mr. Combs criticized me for attaching the "Stop Me Before I Sue Again" letter saying, paraphrasing, "and I see you use a California letter". And pray tell me, what the hell does that have to do with anything. You see, when they have nothing intelligent to argue this is what "they" do!! Maybe if ALL of you write to him we might be able to help him understand. But I am not so sure after some reports about his "lawyering skills". Pat Haruff President Coalition of HomeOwners for Rights and Education Neighbor may be liable for referral to 'scoundrel' From: "Christopher A. Combs" Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2003 09: To:Pat Haruff RE: Responsibility of disclosure? Thank you for your comments. Unfortunately, I disagree. The Board is elected to act for the individual homeowners and should not have to procure approval of the homeowners before filing a lawsuit. If the Board acted improperly, a new Board can be elected and the lawsuit can be dropped. Furthermore, the CCRS can be amended by the homeowners to require homeowner approval before a lawsuit can be filed. Additional governmental regulation of HOAs is not necessary in this area. By analogy, by your view President Bush should have procured the approval of the voters before the war with Iraq. I do agree with you, however, that a seller has no liability for failing to disclose a lawsuit unless the seller knows of the lawsuit.Thanks again. From: Pat Haruff To: Christopher Combs Sent: 8/23/2003 5:22PM Subject: Responsibility of disclosure? Dear Mr. Combs, In reading the first question and answer in your column below there is another scenario you and others in this legal field or the Real Estate industry may not have encountered or thought about. I note that you advised the questioner/Buyer that s/he has grounds for a lawsuit because the Seller did not disclose the fact that the property was involved in a Construction Defect Class Action lawsuit against the Developer/Builder. One thing that isn't clear is whether this property is in a Homeowners Association and if the HOA filed the class action lawsuit. If this is in a Homeowners Association, I would like you to consider the following suggestions. Has it occurred to you that the Seller is/was, not aware of the lawsuit? Since discussion and action on actual litigation or pending litigation is conducted in "closed door meetings", homeowners are not informed nor are the minutes of such a meeting made public. In other words, homeowners are not "allowed" to know what is discussed in these "closed door" meetings. This kind of "secret" dealing and the fact that no one other than the property owner should have the right to decide to place property under the stigma of litigation without the homeowners permission. This is the very reason CHORE supported HB 2034 in the last legislative session. But the "industry" organization CAI, Community Associates Institute was able to convince the Governor not to sign the non partisan legislation. So the property owners who live in HOAs lost their rights again! Since CHORE and other homeowner advocate groups know of situations where there are NO defects but the lawsuit is filed anyway, I am asking you, in you position to help us to right the wrongs. I have attached a letter from one homeowner in Southern California that really illustrates the true problem. Thank you for your attention and I look forward to your response. Christopher Combs - Special for The Republic Aug. 23, 2003 12:00 AM QUESTION: I recently purchased a 3-year-old home in a subdivision in west Phoenix. Then I discovered that there is a class-action lawsuit for construction defects against the home builder for the subdivision. Although I understand that each original owner will receive a significant settlement, I am not entitled as a subsequent owner to participate. Will I still have a claim for construction defects after the settlement? ANSWER: Your seller had an obligation to disclose any material facts that would adversely affect the value of your home. This disclosure would include construction defects in your home and other homes in the subdivision. You would have a claim against the seller for any loss in value to your home due to the non-disclosure. An original owner and any subsequent owner of a home has a claim for damages, generally the cost of repair, for construction defects for a minimum of six years after completion of the home. You should contact an attorney to evaluate the effect, if any, of this class-action lawsuit on your claims against the seller or home builder. The lawsuit should be a matter of public record at the Maricopa County Superior Court QUESTION: After we signed the purchase contract to sell our Glendale home, we moved to Idaho. The buyer then conducted a home inspection and submitted a list of three minor repairs to be corrected to our real-estate broker. We told our broker that we would make these repairs. Our broker then telephoned and e-mailed the buyer's broker to say that we would make the repairs. The buyer canceled the purchase contract because he says it requires us, and not our real-estate broker, to agree in writing to make repairs. The buyer is demanding the return of his $3,000 earnest money. Is he correct? ANSWER: Probably not. The purchase contract used in most residential transactions states that the seller must agree in writing to make repairs requested by the buyer. If not, the buyer can cancel the purchase contract. A real-estate broker representing the seller probably has authority to agree on behalf of the seller to make the requested repairs, and the e-mail to the buyer's broker probably satisfies the writing requirement. If you want to assert a claim against the $3,000 earnest money, however, you initially have to mediate this claim with the buyer before a third-party mediator. The law is different for the execution of the purchase contracts. A real-estate broker does not have the authority to execute a purchase contract on behalf of the seller or the buyer unless the broker has a power of attorney. In addition, an e-mail acceptance of an offer or a counteroffer in a purchase contract does not generally satisfy the statute of frauds requirement of a written acceptance unless the parties have agreed to the use of e-mail. Christopher Combs is a practicing real-estate attorney with the law firm of Combs Law Group, P.C. He is a State Bar-certified real-estate specialist and a licensed real-estate broker. Letters and comments should be sent to Real Estate Q&A, Attn: Elise Peters, P.O. Box 32981, Phoenix, AZ 85064-4443, or to chris@combs-law.com via e-mail. Due to the number of questions, Combs will not be able to respond to each question. For additional general legal information and previously printed questions, visit www.combs-law.com. Your own legal or tax adviser must be consulted before making any decisions with legal or tax consequences. From: "Christopher A. Combs" Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2003 11:55:26 -0700 To: Pat Haruff Subject: RE: RE: Responsibility of disclosure? Isn't ARS 33-2002 requiring Board authorization for a lawsuit AND notice of material information to members with a membership meeting before filing a lawsuit sufficient? Isn't that exactly what President Bush and Congress did before declaring war on Iraq (except no meeting of voters). Although you claim all these abuses by HOAs in Arizona, I find it interesting that you support your argument with a letter from a California homeowner. Anyhow, interesting dialogue and I suppose that we will just have to disagree with one another. From: Pat Haruff To: "Christopher A. Combs" Sent: 8/25/2003 Subject: RE: Responsibility of disclosure? Dear Chris, Thank you for your prompt response. You did say whether this person lived in an HOA, so I will have to go on the assumption that they do and your answer would then address those special circumstances. As a Board member on my HOAs Board of Directors I agree with your statement that "the Board is elected to act for the individual homeowners" but that's it. I do not agree that the Board may lead the Association into expensive litigation (the loser must pay all legal fees and costs) without consulting with those (the homeowners) who may have to pay the consequences with reduced property values and $$$$. Not to mention the stigma of litigation placed on their property without their say......I am sure you would agree this is a "bad thing". Now remember, we started this discussion off about Construction Defect litigation. Did you read the letter I attached? We actually have documentation of some Defect Attorneys or their "minions" convincing Boards to file these suits even when there are no defects existing. How do they convince them you ask? With cruises, vacations, etc, etc. I am sure you would agree that there are some "bad eggs" in your profession, as in all professions! Now that you and I agree that this can happen, wouldn't it be better when a Board considers litigation in the millions of dollars that they should discuss this with their residents who are actually the people the litigation most affects. And since all Boards cannot be trusted to be honest and upfront with the residents, yes we do need a law that says that 51% of the homeowners must approve such litigation. Trust me, if the defects actually exist the homeowners will approve it. But this brings me to a question and be patient with me, I am not an attorney. Let's say in a community of 100 homes, there are only 25 that have the defects and the Board refuses to file litigation (this does happen), why can't the 25 homes hire a Construction Defect Attorney to take the case on the same basis, on CONTINGENCY? Consider also that many times IF and WHEN the Association wins the case, the Attorneys take their cut of 40%, not leaving enough to correct the defects (if there are any). What happens then? Your statement that "a new Board may be voted".....I don't know if you live in an HOA but that is really a "pie in the sky" statement. Real life in an HOA just isn't like that. You also state that "the homeowners can amend the documents".......another fallacy and "industry speak" or aka: CAI dribble. The Board, not the homeowners, determine what changes to the governing documents will be presented on a ballot. Your analogy to President Bush and the war in Iraq is a poor one. The President DID take it to the people, he took it to our Representatives in DC....these Representatives, unlike Boards in HOAs, did not meet behind closed door in a meeting where even the Agenda was SECRET. We knew where, when and what our Representatives were voting on and they announced to us HOW THEY VOTED AND WHO VOTED HOW. I see no comparison with the President of the United States and a Board of Directors of a quasi government PRIVATE NON PROFIT CORPORATION. I am pleased that you agree that the Seller should not be obligated to disclosure of facts they have no way to know. So hopefully, you will help us to be part of the solution. A good start would be to help us to write legislation making it very clear that it is the HOAs responsibility to inform every homeowner of ANY litigation the Association is involved with. And if they do not do this, the Association will be the entity in line to be sued, NOT THE INNOCENT HOMEOWNER. Can we count on you to help do this and then follow it through the Legislature to signature of the Governor? After all, I am sure your concern is to protect your customer, the Real Estate Buyer/Seller, joining hands with the Arizona Association of Realtors, AAR and the Arizona State Department of Real Estate. Again, thank you for the chance to have this very important discussion. From: Christopher A. Combs Sent: Monday, August 25, 2003 9:15 AM To: Pat Haruff Subject: RE: Responsibility of disclosure? Thank you for your comments. Unfortunately, I disagree. The Board is elected to act for the individual homeowners and should not have to procure approval of the homeowners before filing a lawsuit. If the Board acted improperly, a new Board can be elected and the lawsuit can be dropped. Furthermore, the CCRS can be amended by the homeowners to require homeowner approval before a lawsuit can be filed. Additional governmental regulation of HOAs is not necessary in this area. By analogy, by your view President Bush should have procured the approval of the voters before the war with Iraq. I do agree with you, however, that a seller has no liability for failing to disclose a lawsuit unless the seller knows of the lawsuit.Thanks again. From: Pat Haruff To: Christopher Combs Sent: 8/23/2003 5:22PM Subject: Responsibility of disclosure? August 23, 2003 Dear Mr. Combs, In reading the first question and answer in your column below there is another scenario you and others in this legal field or the Real Estate industry may not have encountered or thought about. I note that you advised the questioner/Buyer that s/he has grounds for a lawsuit because the Seller did not disclose the fact that the property was involved in a Construction Defect Class Action lawsuit against the Developer/Builder. One thing that isn't clear is whether this property is in a Homeowners Association and if the HOA filed the class action lawsuit. If this is in a Homeowners Association, I would like you to consider the following suggestions. Has it occurred to you that the Seller is/was, not aware of the lawsuit? Since discussion and action on actual litigation or pending litigation is conducted in "closed door meetings", homeowners are not informed nor are the minutes of such a meeting made public. In other words, homeowners are not "allowed" to know what is discussed in these "closed door" meetings. This kind of "secret" dealing and the fact that no one other than the property owner should have the right to decide to place property under the stigma of litigation without the homeowners permission. This is the very reason CHORE supported HB 2034 in the last legislative session. But the "industry" organization CAI, Community Associates Institute was able to convince the Governor not to sign the non partisan legislation. So the property owners who live in HOAs lost their rights again! Since CHORE and other homeowner advocate groups know of situations where there are NO defects but the lawsuit is filed anyway, I am asking you, in you position to help us to right the wrongs. I have attached a letter from one homeowner in Southern California that really illustrates the true problem. Thank you for your attention and I look forward to your response. Christopher Combs - Special for The Republic Aug. 23, 2003 12:00 AM QUESTION: I recently purchased a 3-year-old home in a subdivision in west Phoenix. Then I discovered that there is a class-action lawsuit for construction defects against the home builder for the subdivision. Although I understand that each original owner will receive a significant settlement, I am not entitled as a subsequent owner to participate. Will I still have a claim for construction defects after the settlement? ANSWER: Your seller had an obligation to disclose any material facts that would adversely affect the value of your home. This disclosure would include construction defects in your home and other homes in the subdivision. You would have a claim against the seller for any loss in value to your home due to the non-disclosure. An original owner and any subsequent owner of a home has a claim for damages, generally the cost of repair, for construction defects for a minimum of six years after completion of the home. You should contact an attorney to evaluate the effect, if any, of this class-action lawsuit on your claims against the seller or home builder. The lawsuit should be a matter of public record at the Maricopa County Superior Court QUESTION:: After we signed the purchase contract to sell our Glendale home, we moved to Idaho. The buyer then conducted a home inspection and submitted a list of three minor repairs to be corrected to our real-estate broker. We told our broker that we would make these repairs. Our broker then telephoned and e-mailed the buyer's broker to say that we would make the repairs. The buyer canceled the purchase contract because he says it requires us, and not our real-estate broker, to agree in writing to make repairs. The buyer is demanding the return of his $3,000 earnest money. Is he correct? ANSWER Probably not. The purchase contract used in most residential transactions states that the seller must agree in writing to make repairs requested by the buyer. If not, the buyer can cancel the purchase contract. A real-estate broker representing the seller probably has authority to agree on behalf of the seller to make the requested repairs, and the e-mail to the buyer's broker probably satisfies the writing requirement. If you want to assert a claim against the $3,000 earnest money, however, you initially have to mediate this claim with the buyer before a third-party mediator. The law is different for the execution of the purchase contracts. A real-estate broker does not have the authority to execute a purchase contract on behalf of the seller or the buyer unless the broker has a power of attorney. In addition, an e-mail acceptance of an offer or a counteroffer in a purchase contract does not generally satisfy the statute of frauds requirement of a written acceptance unless the parties have agreed to the use of e-mail. Christopher Combs is a practicing real-estate attorney with the law firm of Combs Law Group, P.C. He is a State Bar-certified real-estate specialist and a licensed real-estate broker. Letters and comments should be sent to Real Estate Q&A, Attn: Elise Peters, P.O. Box 32981, Phoenix, AZ 85064-4443, or to chris@combs-law.com via e-mail. Due to the number of questions, Combs will not be able to respond to each question. For additional general legal information and previously printed questions, visit www.combs-law.com. Your own legal or tax adviser must be consulted before making any decisions with legal or tax consequences. Posted Nov 9 2003 2:09AM CET     Username withheld San Juan Capistrano, California   1. Richard Ruelas does not want government to protect grown adults who cannot read a contract     In a democracy, the open and free exchange of ideas to properly inform the electorate is a necessary and vital requirement. When the only stastewide newpaper allows such reporting, while not presenting the views of teh homeowner advocates, is a direct reflection on its affiliation with the special interest lobbyists. This is just an example of how the Republic ignores its civic responsibilities to the public. This is a personal attack on an elected state representative. From reporter Ruelas in the March 3rd issue of The Arizona Republic. And there's more .... "Rep. Eddie Farnsworth is truly concerned about the failure of the public education system. So much so that he feels the government needs to protect grown adults who cannot read a contract. "But Farnsworth doesn't believe those same adults are capable of making intelligent decisions about where they live. "That's why Farnsworth has introduced a bill, HB 2307, deepening government's involvement in people's purchase of their home." Now, that's dirty pool, a real low down attack. Just look at the typical charges to scare people --more government involvement. On top of theat, he insults all homeowners who own a home in an HOA. It's obvious that Ruelas hasn't even attempted to see the whole truth. Shame on The Republic. George Staropoli Citizens Against Private Government HOAs Posted Nov 9 2003 1:57AM CET     Username withheld San Juan Capistrano, California

Return to 'Arizona Republic' | Submit a comment

Forums