Where's California's Homeowners Bill of Rights?
Excerpt from letter to California's Law Review Commission.
In Memorandum 2006-25, Dispute Resolution has been introduced as a new area of concern, still without first establishing those rights belonging to the homeowners, and those prohibitions on the restriction and denial of those rights by the association board or state laws. In other words, the Homeowners Bill of Rights is still placed on “Reserved” status. What I find alarming in MM06-25 is the determinations by CLRC of the existing methods of justice and due process for homeowners: civil action without any state involvement.
Where is the State of California in this entire affair? It has imposed the Davis-Stirling Act on homeowners that permits the taking of his home for sums that are often a fraction of the value of the home lost in foreclosure. That also sanctions and makes legal actions by associations boards that place restrictions on a citizen’s constitutional rights without appropriate due process. What the state offers, instead, is a civil action -- a “leave me out of it, but obey the law” attitude with no bill of rights protections for the homeowner. This can no longer be tolerated if America and California are to continue to lie claim to be democratic, the land of equal laws where fundamental rights and freedoms are guaranteed. Civil action amounts to a bar against justice much as the imposition of poll tax in the South in the 1950s used to prevent blacks from registering to vote. Justice for the average homeowner cannot be had a price which he cannot afford while the association is allowed to use member dues to hire a lawyer. Why not provide a law that the associations must subject themselves not to a general Ombudsman fee, but to fee for a general litigation fund for homeowners to fight association abuse?
The complete letter can be found at CLRC.
In Memorandum 2006-25, Dispute Resolution has been introduced as a new area of concern, still without first establishing those rights belonging to the homeowners, and those prohibitions on the restriction and denial of those rights by the association board or state laws. In other words, the Homeowners Bill of Rights is still placed on “Reserved” status. What I find alarming in MM06-25 is the determinations by CLRC of the existing methods of justice and due process for homeowners: civil action without any state involvement.
Civil Action to Enforce Governing Documents
Section 1354 provides for judicial enforcement of an association’s governing documents. That section is continued without substantive change in proposed Section 5125.
Civil Action to Enforce Statutory CID Law
In order to provide clear guidance on the issue, proposed Section 5130 would authorize a civil action to enforce any provision of the Davis-Stirling Act.
Where is the State of California in this entire affair? It has imposed the Davis-Stirling Act on homeowners that permits the taking of his home for sums that are often a fraction of the value of the home lost in foreclosure. That also sanctions and makes legal actions by associations boards that place restrictions on a citizen’s constitutional rights without appropriate due process. What the state offers, instead, is a civil action -- a “leave me out of it, but obey the law” attitude with no bill of rights protections for the homeowner. This can no longer be tolerated if America and California are to continue to lie claim to be democratic, the land of equal laws where fundamental rights and freedoms are guaranteed. Civil action amounts to a bar against justice much as the imposition of poll tax in the South in the 1950s used to prevent blacks from registering to vote. Justice for the average homeowner cannot be had a price which he cannot afford while the association is allowed to use member dues to hire a lawyer. Why not provide a law that the associations must subject themselves not to a general Ombudsman fee, but to fee for a general litigation fund for homeowners to fight association abuse?
The complete letter can be found at CLRC.
posted by Citizens for Constitutional Local Government | 6:18 PM
<< Home