Couple lose their home over $120 debt

The Sacramento Bee ^ | January 24, 2004 | Michael Kolber -- Bee Staff Writer

[DelaWhere]

Couple lose their home over $120 debt By Michael Kolber -- Bee Staff Writer Published 2:15 a.m. PST Saturday, January 24, 2004 Get weekday updates of Sacramento Bee headlines and breaking news. Sign up here.

COPPEROPOLIS -- A retired couple's dispute with their homeowners association has spiraled out of control in this Calaveras County community -- and now they have lost their home less than a year after failing to pay $120 in annual dues.

[sauropod]

Your post is riduculous. I used to belong to an HOA board and they have this thing called discretion.

[sauropod]

That's true and that is why conservatives and pro-property rights folks like you and i need to join the HOAs.

I did so for the express purpose of reigning in these weenies. (talk about the fox guarding the henhouse ;-)

[technochick99]

People who voluntarily enter agreements with HOA are foolish much like people who would give up their personal freedoms guaranteed by the constitution for security are foolish.

Well, I take exception to that. In my area, there are very few places without HOAs. Mine is quite restrictive (it was in the natl news over a flag of the Air Force I think), but I get a lot out of it. Most of the things they disallow I wouldn't do anyway.

However, the asssociation is made up of elected boards (we have one overall, along with one for each 'community' within the larger subdivision). The rules can be changed, but not easily.

[Hildy]

She's right about the perceived "power" of HOA's. I was on the grievance committee many years of ago of my HOA. I couldn't believe how mean and vicious some of these "LADIES" were. There was one instance where a young girl played her boombox too loud at the pool and they fined her $200. She came in and pleaded because she didn't have the money. I couldn't believe these nice "LADIES" demanded the money from her, despite my vote in her favor. I quit in protest and never went back.

[WFTR]

First, the constitution involved is the California state consitution and not the United States federal Constitution. I was speaking of the state legislator mentioned in the article and the law that he was going to introduce in California.

Secondly, the relations between HOAs and residents are generally stipulated by state law. The article implies that the HOA was acting on authority given to it by the state law. I don't know the California constitution or how this law was justified under that constitution. However, having entered into this realm, the law shouldn't favor HOAs as strongly as it does. This area isn't the "contracts between individuals" issue that some self-righteous purists try to pretend that it is.

Thirdly, contracts between individuals do not supercede rights guaranteed in the federal and state constitutions. Regarding HOAs specifically, deed restrictions that prevent someone from selling to minorities are no longer allowed. To the real purist, I guess a group of racists should be allowed to buy houses together and prevent one another from ever selling to a minority. I think most of us see this vision of "contracts between individuals" as being over the line. (The third point does not relate to this specific case, but it does help show how silly the purist argument can become.)

Another Terri's Law
Bill

[Bronco_Buster_FweetHyagh]

The title is misleading. It should say "Couple lose their home due to Ignorance and Stubbornness."

[pamlet]

I agree with you = I've been our board for 10 years. I can't tell you the times I've wanted to quit .. actually did once, but was persuaded to come back on.

I know for the most part our POA (we are a property owners association - not homeowners..) have always been reasonably sensible. Last year we had a few folks get on that had specific agendas. It's been an interesting fight. In our case we have VERY limited funds to maintain a pool and unpaved (non county) roads. It's all we can do to keep the pool running, and grade a road a year.

Our POA was created over 30 years ago, and the way the by-laws are written it is close to impossible to change them. Therefore we cannot raise dues (either $24.00 or $48.00 a YEAR depending on what unit you own property in).

The "new folks" have differing agendas - but that's why our little core group hangs tough. It is obvious they are on the board for personal gain, not to protect the community. We're constantly fighting about impossible ways to enforce restrictions, and always having to bring back the bottom line - you CANNOT change a thing without 50% approval of the total of the property owners. SO - we stumble along, trying to maintain the pool/park and roads on literally under 5000.00 a year. I will say it's made for interesting board meetings. AND a couple of the "newbies" have admitted that it is NOT as cut and dried as they thought.

By the way - we've NEVER forclosed on a property. We HAVE placed liens against some that have NEVER paid their dues.

Under discussion for next year is turning over our billing to a 3rd party. They pay us up front for a fairly large percentage of the entire dues to be collected. It's up to them to collect the rest. But only for current dues - nothing past due.. It's just been brought forward, and we are investigating it for next year.

Texas recently put some laws into effect that protect the homeowner (slightly) and I think that is fair.

In the case of this article - it would be interesting to see the whole story - is it actually a(n) HOA run amok - or is there more to the story than we know?

[BigBobber]

Similar stories come up every few months on this forum. People become outraged over this kind of thing because there is no sense of justice or proportionality in the outcome.

How can a $120 bill grow to nearly $2000 in only a year? What kind of "late" penalty is being applied, and at what interest rate? What did the "collection agency" do to earn their portion of $2000? Send a few letters and leave some mesages on an answering machine?

What kind of legal system imposes a $200,000 fine for a $120 debt? That's right, the home is worth $260,000 and the owner will net $60,000. The foreclosure sales on "the courthouse steps" are a crock. They should be sold through realtors like every other home sale.

You need to rethink your "let them eat cake additude". It's not conservative.

[sauropod]

You are sugarcoating the problem. Covenants (in my case) were changeable after 20 or 25 years, but there had to be a considerable effort to do so.

[Polybius]

What part of the Constitution would you point to in preventing free citizens from making rules for THEIR property? The HOA covers PRIVATE PROPERTY! The constitution protects freedom of association. Free people should be able to enter into contracts, even if they are stupid!

You're absolutely right.

I'm going to start inserting a clause in the fine print of the paperwork I have my older patients sign that puts their house at risk in case of non-payment or late payment of my fees. They never read those things and, even if they do read them, they usually pay little attention to the meaning. When a spouse is sick, older couples tend to let the mail pile up.

All I have to do is send a few letters, keep a low profile and then......GOTCHA!!

In one year, I'll be the largest property owner in the County.

Thanks for the suggestion.

[Ditter]

Yes I understand the business & profit aspect of buying this house, I just would not like to have *my* profits come from something like this house. But that is just me.

[sauropod]

If the Radcliffs wilfully disregarded all of the notices etc. you would have a point.

This has yet to be proven IMO.

As i stated elsewhere in this thread, i used to belong to an HOA board and what i saw there was not pretty. MY conservative values bid me to oppose tyranny wherever i see it.

I see it here.

[Noumenon]

This is both cruel and outrageous. No one cares, though, unitl people start dying.

[Ronly Bonly Jones]

But my overarching point is the fact that you can do it in the first place. When a free American buys a piece of property, private property rights should be the ultimate and final authority, as long as nobody else's rights are infringed upon. Forgive me for sounding Libertarian, but where am I wrong? The HOA seems to be the one in violation of the Constitution. They don't own the property.>>

Well, it is all tied into how we transfer seisin, or ownership rights over real property, from Person 1 to Person 2, using the system of land laws in place since the time of Henry VIII.

I'm going to oversimplify horribly (my Property Law professor would puke if she read this) but I'll try to explain.

When I sell land to you, I can sell the land in fee simple, giving you all rights, and retaining none. I could, in the alternative, sell you land with a "right of reversion" (I can specify that the land I sell or give you MUST be used for building a church, or you must keep it alcohol-free, or whatever; if you use the land for a purpose other than that I specify when I sell it to you, I can then retake possession of the land and eject you, even though you bought the land from me. Covenants, which are used to form HOAs, are related to this "right of reversion".

Homeowner Nazi Gauleiters derive their power from this kind of land sale. I am the Evil Developer. I buy a farm for a song at an estate sale for pennies on the dollar. Bwhahahaha. I then divide the land up into individual lots and sell them piecemeal after building homes on the lot. But the deed I sell specifies that you MUST buy the land on the condition that you MUST participate in the Homeowner Nazi Buffalo Rape Ceremony every year by throwing money at them. You are also prohibited from doing anything that the Homeowner Nazis prohibit as offensive, like painting your front door bright fuscia, or putting up a treehouse in your back yard, or having a statute of the Virgin in the garden. If you fail to throw the requisite money or otherwise submit to their dictatorial rule, the aforementioned Nazis can, and do, have the right to sue you for the money or seize (a word etymologically related to "seisin") your home and sell it out from under you. As happened here.

Once this condition is put into the deed it is almost impossible to get rid of as you have to get EVERYONE living in the subidivision to agree to get rid of it. ONE holdout can veto.

The First Amendment remember relates only to goverment action by the federal government, states, or agencies of the states (such as state owned universities). But HOAs are NOT "governmental" in nature.

This is also why for many years "no-Jews" or "no-blacks" covenants could not be overridden, and these days even if those covenants cannot be enforced they are still almost impossible to get rid of. Which means any Repubican considering running for office had better check the deed of his home proir to buying because any no-Jews covenants will be used against him by the Press (even though they're not his fault and impossible to get rid of). (Democrats of course need fear nothing of the sort.)

There is a certain beauty and elegance to English land ownership law, which still is operative in the United States. But the downside is that the Nazis and their buffaloes roam in subdivisions and you'd better be prepared to submit to them if they have the authority.

[SoCal Pubbie]

I won't defend the home owner's association in this case. I have enough trouble with mine! Assuming the story is as written then the HOA could have put a lien on the house, or taken some other action to deal with the situation other then forcing the owners out of their home.

On the other hand, to see one case of HOA abuse and make a blanket statement about all is like seeing one story of corrupt police and saying "You'd have to be NUTS to live in a development with a police department".

[HairOfTheDog]

You are sugarcoating the problem. Covenants (in my case) were changeable after 20 or 25 years, but there had to be a considerable effort to do so.

I am reporting on my experience. Experiences are as varied as the people in them. I don't know your particular case of course... but most rules in covenants are rules that, arguably, a majority of the people want. Yes, it may take effort to change rules that some think are a good idea.

[Johnny_Cipher]

People become outraged over this kind of thing because there is no sense of justice or proportionality in the outcome.

I don't think anyone is cheering this result (with the arguable exception of the new homeowner who basically got it for a song). But s*** happens and it wasn't the HOA's fault that the couple didn't pay their bills.

How can a $120 bill grow to nearly $2000 in only a year? What kind of "late" penalty is being applied, and at what interest rate? What did the "collection agency" do to earn their portion of $2000? Send a few letters and leave some mesages on an answering machine?

These are all questions that the couple who lost their home should be asking themselves. They should also be asking themselves how they could have let a $120 bill run unpaid for long enough to wipe out their investment. They should also be asking themselves why in the world they voluntarily signed a contract that imposed such onerous penalties upon themselves.

What kind of legal system imposes a $200,000 fine for a $120 debt? That's right, the home is worth $260,000 and the owner will net $60,000.

It wasn't a "fine," it was the result of poor planning and non-action on the part of the original homeowners. Don't want this to happen to you? Then don't sign stupid contracts.

The foreclosure sales on "the courthouse steps" are a crock. They should be sold through realtors like every other home sale.

Who are you to impose conditions on the way this particular HOA/county/taxing authority conducts business if they're doing so legally? Don't like the rules? Then don't live there.

You need to rethink your "let them eat cake additude". It's not conservative.

Its not "conservative" to advocate treating a legal, binding contract like so much toilet paper.

[Cultural Jihad]

Thomas and Anita Radcliff's sign in front of their Calaveras County home, which was foreclosed on, explains their legal predicament.

Would those who tout the rule of law as supreme above all other considerations care to applaud the rule of law being applied here? These people are I-L-L-E-G-A-L-S by definition because they broke a law.

While they have rights to their own property, they also have responsibilities which come with it. Rights always come with responsibilities. It does no good to gripe about the existence of one without the existence of the other. And it doesn't matter what the issue of ownership is, whether it's a property, or citizenship, or one's own body -- our rights to something are predicated upon rules which regulate and encourage responsible ownership.

What those rules are can be open for debate, but not the infringement of rights or the shirking of responsibilities.