HOA Homeowners' Rights Task Force

Share Your HOA Story

• Share "A Man's Home is His Castle" act would neuter all HOAs on Facebook Share "A Man's Home is His Castle" act would neuter all HOAs on Twitter Share "A Man's Home is His Castle" act would neuter all HOAs on Linkedin Email "A Man's Home is His Castle" act would neuter all HOAs link

  "A Man's Home is His Castle" act would neuter all HOAs

  by COLG, over 2 years ago

  While the author of the draft "A Man's Home is His Castle" Colorado Homeowners' Protection Act means well, the net result of any implementation of this act would render HOAs paper tigers. I would resign from my position as President of our HOA and spend my time preparing my property for sale before our values plummet.

  It is far too easy to find a bad HOA board yet lets not throw the baby out with the bathwater. I speculate that there are far more functioning HOAs where board members strive to follow titles 7 and 38 C.R.S. Their members are... Continue reading

  While the author of the draft "A Man's Home is His Castle" Colorado Homeowners' Protection Act means well, the net result of any implementation of this act would render HOAs paper tigers. I would resign from my position as President of our HOA and spend my time preparing my property for sale before our values plummet.

  It is far too easy to find a bad HOA board yet lets not throw the baby out with the bathwater. I speculate that there are far more functioning HOAs where board members strive to follow titles 7 and 38 C.R.S. Their members are satisfied with the board and vote to retain the board members with the knowledge that their best interest is why the HOA and Board exist.

  The changes to Title 30 over the last few years have begun this slide to HOA irrelevance and it will ultimately be a case of "be careful of what you ask for, you might actually get it.

  An HOAs ability to impose reasonable fines after following due process is a critical element of the balance between anarchy and tyranny. If an HOA is forced to utilize small claims court as its primary means to force compliance with an agreed upon set of rules, the cost would negate any reasonable HOA Board to jst let it go. That would result in more violations and more turning of cheeks to the point of obviating the HOA in its entirety. Good luck with that.
• Share The art of "MAKING CONNECTIONS" on Facebook Share The art of "MAKING CONNECTIONS" on Twitter Share The art of "MAKING CONNECTIONS" on Linkedin Email The art of "MAKING CONNECTIONS" link

  The art of "MAKING CONNECTIONS"

  by whoownsmyhome, over 2 years ago
  I must admit I've never thought about the role of the HOA in protecting me from the absolute property value chaos that would exist absent the HOA. Nope, never gave it a consideration at all. In fact, I think the HOA should have a GIANT reader board right outside with the HOA sign that gives a daily count of the number of violations given, the fine revenue, the daily number of liens and foreclosures from the day the HOA took control. That'll show the riff-raff the HOA means business! The real estate flyer should contain the same information. Yes, this... Continue reading

  I must admit I've never thought about the role of the HOA in protecting me from the absolute property value chaos that would exist absent the HOA. Nope, never gave it a consideration at all. In fact, I think the HOA should have a GIANT reader board right outside with the HOA sign that gives a daily count of the number of violations given, the fine revenue, the daily number of liens and foreclosures from the day the HOA took control. That'll show the riff-raff the HOA means business! The real estate flyer should contain the same information. Yes, this is excellent! Preserving Property Values, One VIOLATION at a time!

  Course along with that information, the HOA would have to announce the amount of the assessment for NO amenities, the construction defect lawsuit (because there is nothing like going to court and saying we have a gazillion construction defects, settling the lawsuit and no audit to show remediation was done and then wondering, hmmm ... the insurance premium is going up) and then showing your budget now is burdened by increased insurance premiums and administrative costs. Yep, that'll definitely work in favor of property values, right?

  It's easy to blame the homeowners. My HOA has a form you must fill out to even express interest in serving on the Board. This form goes TO the management company and contains ten questions, including "what is your PHILOSOPHY of Covenant Enforcement and Architecture Control". I have never seen the results of this questionnaire for ANY Board Member, elected or appointed. However, as expressed in the Annual Meeting, all questions MUST go through the management company, I'm really not quite sure WHY we have a board and the members of the BOARD are not listed on the HOA website, so there's that.

  Homeowners aren't complaining because they don't want to follow the "rules". They are complaining because the "rules" only exist in one direction. Against the homeowner. Period. Full Stop.
• Share re New Homeowners Generally Uninformed on Facebook Share re New Homeowners Generally Uninformed on Twitter Share re New Homeowners Generally Uninformed on Linkedin Email re New Homeowners Generally Uninformed link

  re New Homeowners Generally Uninformed

  by Robert Racansky, over 2 years ago
  

  Here's the truth: If that is the way you want to live, then a covenant controlled community is not for you. Go live another non-HOA neighborhood; you deserve to live with others who, like you, don't want to live by covenants. However, just a heads up: when you're in your new, non-HOA neighborhood
  - glewis, "New Homeowners Generally Uninformed". January 10 2024

  glewis makes the common error of conflating an H.O.A. -- which is a corporation, a legal entity -- with restrictive covenants -- which are the "neighborhood rules".
  
  It is possible -- and preferable -- to have... Continue reading

  Here's the truth: If that is the way you want to live, then a covenant controlled community is not for you. Go live another non-HOA neighborhood; you deserve to live with others who, like you, don't want to live by covenants. However, just a heads up: when you're in your new, non-HOA neighborhood
  - glewis, "New Homeowners Generally Uninformed". January 10 2024

  glewis makes the common error of conflating an H.O.A. -- which is a corporation, a legal entity -- with restrictive covenants -- which are the "neighborhood rules".
  
  It is possible -- and preferable -- to have restrictive covenants without an H.O.A. corporation.

  I do understand your point about keeping up the deed restrictions, but careful, because you may be falling into a common error. Restrictive covenants are one thing, and HOAs are another. In order to enforce a neighborhood's restrictive covenants, it is NOT necessary to have an HOA. It is true that having a HOA can make it easier to enforce the covenants, in several ways. For one thing, you don't need to find a homeowner to be a plaintiff, although any homeowner will do and it shouldn't be that hard to find one if anyone's really interested. For another, if you have an HOA, you can bill all the neighbors and force them to help pay for the lawsuit. For another, you can enforce the collection of this bill with a lien against everyone's house. Finally, if the HOA wins the dispute with the homeowner whose grass is too high, or whatever (and the HOA always wins, because the rules and vague and discretionary and totally in its favor), the HOA has a lien against the homeowner for the penalties and legal expenses. As in, $700 for the pain and suffering caused by the too-high grass, and $15,000 for the lawyers.

  The question is whether all this is a good trade-off. Without the HOA, the neighbors have deed restrictions and any one of them (or group of them) can sue if someone violates the restrictions. The concerned neighbors will have to pass the hat to pay for the lawsuit, so they probably won't sue if it's not pretty important. They can always coordinate all this through a civic club, which probably will be funded by voluntary contributions, which are a pain to collect – but all these factors make it likely the lawsuits won't get out of control and people won't be losing their homes to foreclosure over silly disputes. Oil stains on the driveway, flagpole too tall, mailbox in non-approved location, shrubbery not up to snuff, miniblinds in front windows not approved shade of ecru – and I'm NOT making those up, they are from real court cases.

  My 50-year-old non-HOA neighborhood in Harris County had mild deed restrictions. The place didn't look like a manicured showplace with totally coordinated everything, but we kept the major problems under control. No management company, no law firm, no out-of-control Inspectors General on the board, no foreclosures, and no bitter divisions among neighbors. Every few years someone tried to convert the neighborhood to an HOA, but they always got voted down after a public campaign. It takes healthy local grassroots political involvement, which has the added advantage of strengthening the community for other purposes.

  - texan99. August 04 2010. Emphasis added. This was a comment on The Atlantic web site in response to "No Such Thing As A Simple Mortgage" (August 03 2010) by Megan McArdle.

  
  
• Share Blocking Open Board Seats - Election Interference on Facebook Share Blocking Open Board Seats - Election Interference on Twitter Share Blocking Open Board Seats - Election Interference on Linkedin Email Blocking Open Board Seats - Election Interference link

  Blocking Open Board Seats - Election Interference

  by Andrew Mowery, over 2 years ago

  Hi Everyone!

  
  In December, our HOA held elections for 2 open Director seats. I gave notice of my candidacy in writing to the Board and published it on my HOA blog. The Board acknowledged my email prior to the election.

  Having given notice 6 weeks in advance of the election, I expected my statement of candidacy to go out with the Annual Homeowner Meeting Notice, which is only mailed out 10 days in advance of the meeting. This had been our consistent practice in past years.
  
  Not this year. The problem is that there is broad dissatisfaction with these Directors... Continue reading

  Hi Everyone!

  
  In December, our HOA held elections for 2 open Director seats. I gave notice of my candidacy in writing to the Board and published it on my HOA blog. The Board acknowledged my email prior to the election.

  Having given notice 6 weeks in advance of the election, I expected my statement of candidacy to go out with the Annual Homeowner Meeting Notice, which is only mailed out 10 days in advance of the meeting. This had been our consistent practice in past years.
  
  Not this year. The problem is that there is broad dissatisfaction with these Directors, with one of them escaping a removal vote early in 2023 that received a majority of votes, but did not meet the CCIOA 67% requirement for removal. Two Directors resigned in 2023, including myself.

  
  While you can read details about my electoral history on the website (including video of these meetings going back to 2019), it is the other Directors resignation that is probably more important. The most civil even-tempered person that they can't attack his character or demeanor. He found that he can't work with inflexible individuals who operate ignorant of the law - sometimes willfully. They have the votes, so its a waste of time.
  
  And, most of the rest of the community has recognized that this small plurality of homeowners has used Proxy Hoarding to dominate our elections - sometimes carrying 22-24 proxies out of 87 votes. It's how the other Director avoided removal.
  
  So, the removal attempt on me in January of 2023 was coupled, at the same meeting with the same Petition, to change our Bylaws. They were upset that they had to keep following due process to remove me, without cause. Simply for disagreeing with them, although they manufacture a character flaw due to the fact that I did try to enforce the law on them with litigation in 2020, as CCIOA provides NO OTHER resolution to disputes (advocacy for ADR). In other words, a form of retaliation, which Colorado does not provide protections like Hawaii or Nevada (which are good models for legislation we should consider).
  
  The agenda for that meeting put the removal votes for 2 Directors first, and then Amending the Bylaws to the 3rd position. The Petitioners set the agenda, so they were informed prior to the meeting that the Bylaw could not retroactively apply to the removal votes. You see, they wanted to change the Bylaws to ban removed directors for 3 years - without any cause or even stated reason. This makes it a purely political action.
  
  When they removed me in October of 2022 for taking an open seat in May at an open election, they literally said out loud "we don't have to give you a reason". Then, one of the Petitioners stood up and said because I had previously filed litigation (because the Board was violating the law), I should be removed. Even though we had signed a Settlement Agreement. In other words, if you dare to do the JOB that the State of Colorado puts entirely on homeowners (enforcement of CCIOA on rogue HOA Boards), you can be subjected to removal and a BAN!
  
  But, wait, it gets crazier.
  
  When we get to the next attempt at removal in January of 2023, they realize at the beginning of the meeting that the agenda is out of sequence. So, they amend the agenda with a vote at the beginning of the meeting for the Bylaw to ban removed Directors for 3 years. They had no prepared language, and the Chair of the meeting (President of the HOA) refuses to allow the matter to be referred to committee to figure out the actual language, and perhaps consider having a REASON attached to such a ban.
  
  You see, the Non-Profit Act in CRS 7-128-109 gives the Courts the SOLE POWER to create such bans. In other words, a judge, who can actually impartially adjudicate facts, then has to see if it meets the criteria of the statute. Poudre Overlook HOA, however, wants to usurp the power of the Courts, and change the law to have NO CRITERIA. If you get the votes, you can ban someone!
  
  The President of POHOA then ruled that the motion to move to it committee was "dilatory" and "out of order", and silenced those of us trying to speak on the matter. The vote proceeded, and was passed with a small majority. In fact, a similar vote that failed to remove one of the directors, with almost all parties voting along the same lines.
  
  Prior to my vote, I submitted my written resignation. I knew in advance I would not survive the vote (it had just happened in October, and there was no reason to presume anyone had changed their minds).
  
  Initially, the President said the vote was moot. But, then there were 3 separate arguments. First was to create an on-the-fly process to REFUSE TO ACCEPT MY RESIGNATION. No one had read the Bylaws (except me and a couple others), which state unequivocally that a resignation is effective the moment it is given in writing and received by the Board. It's on video.
  
  Yet, the last argument was that my resignation was "out of order", and that the vote should proceed anyways. The vote went 49-3 against me.
  
  The problem is that the Bylaw, even though voted upon, wasn't effective on that evening of the meeting. In fact, the other resigned Director went to Altitude Law (prominent in these HOA discussions) to ask the question. Noneother than Alina Gilbert stated unequivocally that Bylaws do not become effective until they are SIGNED. Since the language wasn't even really voted upon at the meeting, the Board met a WEEK LATER (on 2/2/23), and finally signed the bylaw. The Board was informed THAT DAY by Ms. Gilbert IN WRITING that the Bylaw was not effective retroactively - so the ban accompanying the ill-advised vote to remove me could not be legally enforced.
  
  The POHOA Board refused to say whether or not I was banned for the rest of the year. They ignored emails, and they wouldn't answer direct questions at meetings.
  
  When I finally submitted my self-nomination, in writing, on October 14, 2023, the Board had the opportunity to put in writing their decision. They ignored the email and followup for weeks, which included references demonstrating that the Resignation was effective per the Bylaws, and that the Amended Bylaw could not possibly be enforced retroactively (which is why they changed the agenda sequence, so they already knew this). They simply didn't realize before the meeting that the vote didn't make it effective because some of the Board members are . . . attorneys (or their spouses are). So, they took unqualified legal advice from people they should not have (and one of them has never practiced law in Colorado to boot!).
  
  So, at the 11/14 meeting, the President finally said out loud that they thought the ban was effective - as they were shooing everyone out of the room for an Executive Session.
  
  They ignored emails up until the 12/5 meeting that made unclear if they would KNOWINGLY attempt to enforce the Amended Bylaw in the face of actual legal advice to the contrary.
  
  I had to attend another meeting the same night as our Annual Homeowner's Meeting, and asked for remote electronic access. They denied/ignored my request.
  
  When I arrived at the meeting, I told them I was leaving early (maybe or maybe not before elections), and that I was giving my proxy to another homeowner - along with my written ballot which I stated should be counted.
  
  I did, in fact, leave early. Not for the least of reasons, the Treasurer, who delayed the election by giving a pitch for the 9th time at an open meeting advising the HOA to put their reserves into GOLD COINS which would be sold by the Coin Shop where he happened to work. He began his presentation by saying he was very sick, having just starting showing symptoms 2 days prior. I put my mask on right away, and was astounded at this lack of courtesy for exposing everyone else at the meeting.
  
  My proxy then stated that I was self-nominated when the first seat was offered up for contesting. She asked for floor-nominations, and, surprisingly, the SPOUSE of the President self-nominated. Then retracted. Then re-self-nominated. And, because the President refused to accept my self-nomination on the grounds that even if it was disputed that my resignation was effective, she was going to honor the INTENT of the petitioners to ban me. So, in other words, the President/Chair was claiming it wasn't her decision, but literally put the liability for enforcement back on those who voted for my removal and expected an application of the 3-year ban.
  
  For the first seat, it wasn't relevant. I would have lost.
  
  But, then the second seat nominations were opened. Again, my proxy raised the issue of my self-nomination, and the President repeated the excuses. This is where the rubber hits the road.
  
  You see, Section 66 of Robert's Rules of Order (RONR) are in play at POHOA because the governing documents are SILENT regarding nomination (no requirement for a floor nomination, no nominating committee, and literally not one word about nominations). So, since written nominations are the common practice of POHOA, and since nominations in advance of meetings is allowed per RONR, my written self-nomination is effective regardless of anything the Chair does.
  
  Even more importantly, however, RONR states that NO NOMINATION IS NECESSARY when votes are submitted via secret ballot. And, I had, in fact, written my name on the ballot (and there was a second vote from my neighbor, whose proxy I carried), and it was given to the proxy. RONR says that even if a party is not nominated, VOTES FOR THEM COUNT.
  
  The problem is that the President/Chair didn't collect ballots because there was no other candidate.
  
  There was even a discussion of reducing the number of seats (to eliminate the open seat), but the Board responded at the meeting that they wanted to have the option to fill it later. In other words, block a legitimate candidate at the meeting, and avoid scrutiny of their hand-picked person (who might be one of their spouses) to fill it later without the Owners having the power to weigh in on the choice.
  
  This can't possibly be how HOA Elections are supposed to be run, and I openly question whether the Board, moving forward, is not illegitimate to the point where its actions are legally ineffective. Huge issue when we have a Board that is actively planning to sue homeowners for having a Pit Bull (and have spent thousands in legal fees in the past 18 months, consuming the entire HOA legal budget). In fact, our President TESTIFIED to this at the 1/2/24 HOA Task Force Meeting!
  
  But, after I testified on 1/2 as well, another stakeholder referred to a "landmark case" regarding HOA elections, and upon first review, it appears there may be interesting crossover topics to the situation I'm describing above.
  
  Bottom line: The HOA Task Force needs to review the documented cases of abuse of HOA Elections processes. Even if they are isolated cases (as some here have said that 85% of HOAs have no problems, so why take action!?!), there is no reason any ONE of them should be allowed to get away without without remedy or consequence.
  
  We don't say that because the majority of Americans are not murdered we should not have laws against murder. That is absurd.
  
  Similarly, the concept that we have to show that a majority of HOAs are experiencing us to predicate action is equally absurd.
  
  Please review the documentation of this situation at www.poudreoverlookhoa.com
  
  
• Share Preserve homeowner property rights on Facebook Share Preserve homeowner property rights on Twitter Share Preserve homeowner property rights on Linkedin Email Preserve homeowner property rights link

  Preserve homeowner property rights

  by DougC, over 2 years ago
  My wife and I purchased a townhome in a HOA community adjacent to our primary residence community. We intended to use the property as a long term rental and manage it ourselves, as it’s within walking distance from our home. We have 8 other rentals across 3 states and have had investment property for over 10 years. We reviewed the HOA covenants in detail and confirmed that short term rentals were not allowed but long term rentals were acceptable. This was confirmed with the HOA manager.

  
  Within 6 months of our purchase, as we attended board meetings and HOA meetings,... Continue reading

  My wife and I purchased a townhome in a HOA community adjacent to our primary residence community. We intended to use the property as a long term rental and manage it ourselves, as it’s within walking distance from our home. We have 8 other rentals across 3 states and have had investment property for over 10 years. We reviewed the HOA covenants in detail and confirmed that short term rentals were not allowed but long term rentals were acceptable. This was confirmed with the HOA manager.

  
  Within 6 months of our purchase, as we attended board meetings and HOA meetings, we learned many of the other owners and board members were hostile toward renters/ investors. This was not shared by the HOA manager when discussing our plans for the property. The board had drawn up revised declarations that included banning all rentals in the complex. The revised documents DO NOT unequivically grandfather in prior investors who bought under the previous rules .

  We believe this action infringes on our property rights and should not be allowed. We have no issue banning future rentals but retroactively taking away our right to use the property as we had intended is unfair and discriminatory. It also forces a financial burden to sell the property

  We would like to see this addressed in revised regulations and limit the ability of 2/3rds of HOA owners to take away property rights under these circumstances. This has a material impact on an owner that FORCEs a sale that revising parking, signage, noise ordinances, etc do not and should not be allowed,

  Thank you

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  
• Share HOA Taskforce Exemplifies Concerns with Colorado Community Associations on Facebook Share HOA Taskforce Exemplifies Concerns with Colorado Community Associations on Twitter Share HOA Taskforce Exemplifies Concerns with Colorado Community Associations on Linkedin Email HOA Taskforce Exemplifies Concerns with Colorado Community Associations link

  HOA Taskforce Exemplifies Concerns with Colorado Community Associations

  by HOA United, over 2 years ago

  It was bizarre and disturbing to witness HOA Homeowners' Rights Task Force member Lee Freedman engage with a member of the public in "fact finding" and start an argument during the 1/2/24 public forum, essentially accusing that homeowner of providing false information to the Task Force. Mr. Freedman, an attorney who represents the interests of the Community Associations Institute (CAI) has previously engaged in 20 to 30 minute-uninterrupted commentary consuming vast swaths of Task Force meetings. Perhaps there should be standards of conduct for Task Force members?

  It was also surprising and equally disturbing to witness Task Force member... Continue reading

  It was bizarre and disturbing to witness HOA Homeowners' Rights Task Force member Lee Freedman engage with a member of the public in "fact finding" and start an argument during the 1/2/24 public forum, essentially accusing that homeowner of providing false information to the Task Force. Mr. Freedman, an attorney who represents the interests of the Community Associations Institute (CAI) has previously engaged in 20 to 30 minute-uninterrupted commentary consuming vast swaths of Task Force meetings. Perhaps there should be standards of conduct for Task Force members?

  It was also surprising and equally disturbing to witness Task Force member Lallis Jackson claim that there is no requirement to keep meeting minutes beyond 7 years. CRS 8-33.3-317 places no upper limit on meeting minute retention periods. DORA published this video about document retention and production. From the DORA YouTube video at 1:26:

  "The following records must be provided when properly requested: they include minutes of all association meetings..."

  The DORA HOA Homeowners' Rights Task Force public comment session was not a forum for "fact finding" or rebuttal of the homeowners who gave up hours of their time to observe and provide testimony, yet two members of the Task Force took it upon themselves to engage in ways that were inappropriate at best and demoralizing at worst.

  If members of the Task Force representing the business industry who own, operate and directly manage community associations 1) do not know the law, and 2) openly claim their own version of misinformation contrary to the law, what hope is there for homeowners who simply want to ensure their association engages in good faith according to the law and their governing documents? The DORA YouTube sums it up: "...file a lawsuit."

  DORA, as the agency facilitating these meetings, should take more decisive action to correct blatantly false information and immediately begin using a professional facilitator such as is the practice for the Metropolitan District Homeowners' Rights Task Force.
• Share New Homeowners Generally Uninformed on Facebook Share New Homeowners Generally Uninformed on Twitter Share New Homeowners Generally Uninformed on Linkedin Email New Homeowners Generally Uninformed link

  New Homeowners Generally Uninformed

  by glewis, over 2 years ago

  Having served our community via the HOA for over 10 years, my experience is that generally speaking, the issue is not with the HOA. Rather, it is with homeowners who tour the community with their real estate agent, love how nice and clean the community is, see the sign at the entrance to the community that it is a "Covenant Protected Community," but never make the connection that the reason the neighborhood is so nice and clean is because the covenants are actually enforced. They find a house they want to live in, the relator (who just wants to make... Continue reading

  Having served our community via the HOA for over 10 years, my experience is that generally speaking, the issue is not with the HOA. Rather, it is with homeowners who tour the community with their real estate agent, love how nice and clean the community is, see the sign at the entrance to the community that it is a "Covenant Protected Community," but never make the connection that the reason the neighborhood is so nice and clean is because the covenants are actually enforced. They find a house they want to live in, the relator (who just wants to make the sale) hands them the covenants and then quickly goes on to the next forms, they make an offer, buy the home, and never think again about the covenants. They start living in their home, never considering that there are covenants, and soon start to violate them. The HOA notifies them of their violations, and then the conflict begins. The homeowner just isn't aware that yes, the covenants apply to them too. No, they cannot do this or that because the covenants apply to them too. Of course they love the fact that Joe down the street cannot trash out their home, but hate the fact that their way of living is also controlled, and no, they cannot destroy value in their home either. It is generally a situation of lack of knowledge and understanding for the new homeowner. Most homeowners I have met would never think of volunteering for the Board of Directors, are not involved in the overall community, and somply want to be left alone. Here's the truth: If that is the way you want to live, then a covenant controlled community is not for you. Go live another non-HOA neighborhood; you deserve to live with others who, like you, don't want to live by covenants. However, just a heads up: when you're in your new, non-HOA neighborhood and that neighbor across the street trashes out their home so bad it's affecting the value of your home, then you will not have anyone to help correct the situation.

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  
• Share Should HOAs be considered monopolies and subject to State and Federal Anti Trust laws on Facebook Share Should HOAs be considered monopolies and subject to State and Federal Anti Trust laws on Twitter Share Should HOAs be considered monopolies and subject to State and Federal Anti Trust laws on Linkedin Email Should HOAs be considered monopolies and subject to State and Federal Anti Trust laws link

  Should HOAs be considered monopolies and subject to State and Federal Anti Trust laws

  by Liam in Broomfield, over 2 years ago

  In my opinion, HOA Management Companies and their Lobbyists/ Business Association are engaged in restraint of trade. Just try to buy any new or previous owned house built since 1980 that does not come with the economic slavery requirement of an ongoing HOA fee.

  A monopoly is a market structure where a single seller or producer assumes a dominant position in an industry or a sector. Monopolies are discouraged in free-market economies as they stifle competition and limit substitutes for consumers.

  Congress passed the first antitrust law, the Sherman Act, in 1890 as a "comprehensive charter of economic liberty aimed... Continue reading

  In my opinion, HOA Management Companies and their Lobbyists/ Business Association are engaged in restraint of trade. Just try to buy any new or previous owned house built since 1980 that does not come with the economic slavery requirement of an ongoing HOA fee.

  A monopoly is a market structure where a single seller or producer assumes a dominant position in an industry or a sector. Monopolies are discouraged in free-market economies as they stifle competition and limit substitutes for consumers.

  Congress passed the first antitrust law, the Sherman Act, in 1890 as a "comprehensive charter of economic liberty aimed at preserving free and unfettered competition as the rule of trade." In 1914, Congress passed two additional antitrust laws: the Federal Trade Commission Act, which created the FTC, and the Clayton Act. With some revisions, these are the three core federal antitrust laws still in effect today.

  The antitrust laws proscribe unlawful mergers and business practices in general terms, leaving courts to decide which ones are illegal based on the facts of each case. Courts have applied the antitrust laws to changing markets, from a time of horse and buggies to the present digital age. Yet for over 100 years, the antitrust laws have had the same basic objective: ***** “to protect the process of competition for the benefit of consumers, making sure there are strong incentives for businesses to operate efficiently, keep prices down, and keep quality up.”

  The Sherman Act outlaws "every contract, combination, or conspiracy in restraint of trade," and any "monopolization, attempted monopolization, or conspiracy or combination to monopolize." Long ago, the Supreme Court decided that the Sherman Act does not prohibit every restraint of trade, only those that are unreasonable. For instance, in some sense, an agreement between two individuals to form a partnership restrains trade, but may not do so unreasonably, and thus may be lawful under the antitrust laws. On the other hand, certain acts are considered so harmful to competition that they are almost always illegal. These include plain arrangements among competing individuals or businesses to fix prices, divide markets, or rig bids. These acts are "per se" violations of the Sherman Act; in other words, no defense or justification is allowed.

  The penalties for violating the Sherman Act can be severe. Although most enforcement actions are civil, the Sherman Act is also a criminal law, and individuals and businesses that violate it may be prosecuted by the Department of Justice. Criminal prosecutions are typically limited to intentional and clear violations such as when competitors fix prices or rig bids. The Sherman Act imposes criminal penalties of up to $100 million for a corporation and $1 million for an individual, along with up to 10 years in prison. Under federal law, the maximum fine may be increased to twice the amount the conspirators gained from the illegal acts or twice the money lost by the victims of the crime, if either of those amounts is over $100 million.

  The Federal Trade Commission Act bans "unfair methods of competition" and "unfair or deceptive acts or practices." The Supreme Court has said that all violations of the Sherman Act also violate the FTC Act. Thus, although the FTC does not technically enforce the Sherman Act, it can bring cases under the FTC Act against the same kinds of activities that violate the Sherman Act. The FTC Act also reaches other practices that harm competition, but that may not fit neatly into categories of conduct formally prohibited by the Sherman Act. Only the FTC brings cases under the FTC Act.

  The Clayton Act addresses specific practices that the Sherman Act does not clearly prohibit, such as mergers and interlocking directorates (that is, the same person making business decisions for competing companies). Section 7 of the Clayton Act prohibits mergers and acquisitions where the effect "may be substantially to lessen competition, or to tend to create a monopoly." As amended by the Robinson-Patman Act of 1936, the Clayton Act also bans certain discriminatory prices, services, and allowances in dealings between merchants. The Clayton Act was amended again in 1976 by the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act to require companies planning large mergers or acquisitions to notify the government of their plans in advance. The Clayton Act also authorizes private parties to sue for triple damages when they have been harmed by conduct that violates either the Sherman or Clayton Act and to obtain a court order prohibiting the anticompetitive practice in the future.

  In addition to these federal statutes, most states have antitrust laws that are enforced by state attorneys general or private plaintiffs. Many of these statutes are based on the federal antitrust laws.

  Again, I submit the reasonable request that Homeowners need a pathway to exit HOAs
• Share Being Optimistic on Facebook Share Being Optimistic on Twitter Share Being Optimistic on Linkedin Email Being Optimistic link

  Being Optimistic

  by Patricia, over 2 years ago

  After attending all of the Task Force meetings and some DORA meetings, I would hope that everyone can agree on one thing: the current laws are one-sided and the homeowners need protection!

  I find it very hard to believe that some task force members have been in the industry for over 20-30 years and claim to be totally unaware of any wrongdoings of some HOA management companies. They seem intent on minimizing the problems of our communities and dismiss our concerns. One is even downright confrontational, causing more and more hostility between HOA's and homeowners, when I thought their task... Continue reading

  After attending all of the Task Force meetings and some DORA meetings, I would hope that everyone can agree on one thing: the current laws are one-sided and the homeowners need protection!

  I find it very hard to believe that some task force members have been in the industry for over 20-30 years and claim to be totally unaware of any wrongdoings of some HOA management companies. They seem intent on minimizing the problems of our communities and dismiss our concerns. One is even downright confrontational, causing more and more hostility between HOA's and homeowners, when I thought their task was supposed to be to listen and report back to Gov. Polis.

  If they are such great community managers, they should be appalled at some of the stories and would want to set a good example and help!

  We are not all idiots. We know that there will be dues increases due to cost of living.

  Most of us homeowners have no problem with the Rules and Regulations.

  We DO have a problem with things being done illegally and need someone to do something about it.

  As far as licensing and training, I don't see any downside to that. In fact, it might even attract more homeowners to the board if there will be some oversight!

  As it is now, I would not want to be associated with a corrupt board or a corrupt management company.

  There have been some great suggestions made by Stanley Hrincevich, HOA United, Rep. Ricks and others, which would have little cost.

  Any cost however, would far outweigh the cost to homeowners being charged outrageous special assessments and some even losing their homes.

  Enforcement was mentioned more than once. Homeowners have no recourse and need help ASAP!!!
• Share No Path to Success on Facebook Share No Path to Success on Twitter Share No Path to Success on Linkedin Email No Path to Success link

  No Path to Success

  by gvito, over 2 years ago
  I see no path to a successful outcome of this Task Force. It is obvious that HOAs bring out the worst in a large percentage of people and that there is no law recommended by the Task Force that the Colorado Legislture could pass which would correct that fact.

  
  

  First the simple fact is that Americans love freedom and hate rules. All one has to do is drive on I-25 where you will quickly realize the most dangerous thing you can do is drive the speed limit. You will be the only one doing so and will put your life... Continue reading

  I see no path to a successful outcome of this Task Force. It is obvious that HOAs bring out the worst in a large percentage of people and that there is no law recommended by the Task Force that the Colorado Legislture could pass which would correct that fact.

  
  

  First the simple fact is that Americans love freedom and hate rules. All one has to do is drive on I-25 where you will quickly realize the most dangerous thing you can do is drive the speed limit. You will be the only one doing so and will put your life in danger. Thus, a certain percentage of homeowners will simply decide that, as with speed limits, any rules or HOA Covenants don't apply to them unless they want them to. These same folks will ignore all the letters and/or emails they receive from their HOA and claim they never knew they were in violation until faced with a penalty so large they can no longer ignore it. This is a paraphrase of a statement of one of the homeowners who faced foreclosure: I knew I violated the rules and that fines were being assessed, but I didn't think they could do anything to me, so I just ignored them.

  On the other hand, HOA Board members can easily fall into the trap of deciding that forcing adherence to the rules is the main goal of their life. I have worked with such a Board member who even after resigning from the Board was out taking photos of supposed violations on Christmas Eve and Day.

  How can the Legislature possibly come up with any law to regulate human nature? What needs to happen is that Board members think very clearly about how and when they enforce rules, asking themselves is this reasonable. Am I treating people how I would like to be treated? On the other hand, if you are the type of person who hates rules and believes you should be able to do absolutely anything you want with your property, then you should never move into a community with an HOA.

  The other issue is that people hate to pay what they consider taxes. HOA assessments feel like taxes to a lot of people, so they automatically hate and resent having to pay them. There are also those who claim they don't have the money to pay assessments so should not have to pay or that the amount must be capped. Since the Legislature cannot repeal the laws of economics, any attempt to cap dues while being totally unable to cap rising costs is doomed to failure.

  So, to the Task Force, good luck on trying to herd cats--you aren't going to succeed!