>> I still don't see how that is circular reasoning. Where do you find a conclusion that is supported by itself?
>
>Here:
>
>> it's really hard to draw a sharp line between that and the wrong color of shutters.
>
>> It's really easy - the former example is actually illegal in most places and the local LE will deal with you
>
> How do you think HOAs enforce their restrictions? When push
> comes to shove, disputes with HOAs get settled in courts,
> which are an arm of the state.
So? That doesn't make it illegal; going to court against an HOA is a civil matter, so the issue of whether something is illegal or not is irrelevant. Going to court because you broke the state's rules is a criminal matter.
When something is illegal, you call the cops and let the state prosecution handle it. When something isn't illegal, you have to directly sue the respondent(s) yourself and handle the matter yourself.
So, yeah, there's a big difference between getting prosecuted by the state in criminal court for defecating on your lawn and getting sued in civil court by the HOA for breaking the contract.
There's no circular reasoning there at all: one of those things ends up in a certain type of court, the other ends up in a different type of court.
> People have the exact same recourse against HOAs as they have against the state because the HOA's authority derives entirely from the state.
No, you have more recourse against the state when the state breaks the rules, and not just because the state has many more limitations on their rules than a HOA. For just one example, the state may not prohibit political speech of one party and encourage political speech of another party, while the HOA has no such limitation.
For that you have no recourse agains the HOA, but you *will* have recourse if the state attempted it.
> It really is just another level of government.
It really isn't.
There's a particularly large difference between criminal and civil trials.
There's a difference between what a juristic person is allowed and what an arm of the state is allowed (one of those two aren't allowed to suppress speech, for example, while the other can).
There's a difference in the enforcement that is allowed (for HOA: fines only, and then go to civil court for an order, for the state: arrest, then prosecution).
There's a difference in the levels of enforcement allowed (HOA has no choice but to launch civil proceedings, while the state is fully within its rights to use force, deadly or otherwise).
They really aren't the same. The rules of an HOA is a meeting-of-the-minds contract between two juristic persons. Any "contract" is not a contract if one of those people don't agree (signed under duress, for example).
The laws of the state does not require the citizen to agree; there is no contract because the citizen has to abide by those laws whether or not they agree to them.
These are distinctions without differences. The point is that someone other than the homeowner is making the decisions. The details of how that other entity is organized, or the source of the power that it has to enforce its decisions, or the specific mechanisms it uses to punish you, don't matter.
But just for the record, you are factually incorrect about a number of your claims.
First, if push really comes to shove, the HOA can force a sale of your house in order to pay your delinquent fines. If you refuse to vacate, the cops will come and they will arrest you and take you to jail. So there really is no difference at all other than the number of steps that it takes to get to that point.
Second, there is no "meeting of the minds" with regards to HOAs because there is no other mind. The HOA CC&Rs are established by the original developer long before anyone joins, and they are take-it-or-leave-it. There is no negotiation. Joining an HOA is exactly the same as becoming a legal resident or naturalized citizen of a country. There are restrictions on your behavior. Whether those restrictions are called "laws" or "HOA rules" is immaterial. If you choose to join, you have to abide by those restrictions or face punishment. If you don't like the terms, your only recourse is to try to effect change via the governing body or leave.
Third, you are factually incorrect about the nature of laws against allowing people to camp on your lawn. Those are generally zoning or public health laws, and violating them is generally a civil offense, not a criminal one. But violations are nonetheless generally prosecuted by the state. Even in private lawsuits, an individual has to show that a law was violated in order to prevail.
You are correct that HOAs are not bound by Constitutional constraints, but I fail to see how that is germane to the matter at hand. Different governmental and quasi-governmental entities have different powers. So what? That doesn't change the central point: either you get decide what you can and can't do with your house, or someone else does. It really is that simple. Attaching a label to the entity that makes the decisions changes nothing. If it quacks like a government...
> But just for the record, you are factually incorrect about a number of your claims.
>
> First, if push really comes to shove, the HOA can force a sale of your house in order to pay your delinquent fines.
No different than any creditor, that doesn't mean all your creditors are a
form of government over you.
> If you refuse to vacate, the cops will come and they will arrest you and take you to jail.
For breaking a law - contempt of court. The same as with any creditor. The cops cannot and will not get involved until you break a law, which means that the HOA has to first go through civil proceedings and get a court to issue an order against you. At that point no crime has been committed. Failing to comply with the order is a crime, at which point the cops can and will get involved.
> So there really is no difference at all other than the number of steps that it takes to get to that point.
>
Other than the fact that they are doing what every creditor does? Do you also consider your credit card company a form of government? Because they can force the sale of your house to pay your debts, and if you don't leave the house the cops will forcibly remove you.
Any creditor can do that. I fail to see why you think the HOA is special in that regard.
>
> Second, there is no "meeting of the minds" with regards to HOAs because there is no other mind. The HOA CC&Rs are established by the original developer long before anyone joins, and they are take-it-or-leave-it.
Believe it or not, that actually is a contract. If you take it, that's a
meeting of minds. Look it up.
> There is no negotiation.
No one said there was, nor does there have to be. All that is required is that both parties agree. If you take it, you agree and it's a contract like any other contract.
> Joining an HOA is exactly the same as becoming a legal resident or naturalized citizen of a country.
Or signing a contract.
> There are restrictions on your behavior.
Just like the clauses in every contract.
> Whether those restrictions are called "laws" or "HOA rules" is immaterial.
They are very material - criminal offences are processed differently to civil suits.
> If you choose to join, you have to abide by those restrictions or face punishment.
In the form of fines, certainly. And if those fines don't work, then the HOA has to sue you like any other creditor would.
> If you don't like the terms, your only recourse is to try to effect change via the governing body or leave.
>
> Third, you are factually incorrect about the nature of laws against allowing people to camp on your lawn. Those are generally zoning or public health laws, and violating them is generally a civil offense, not a criminal one.
I'll grant you this, because I am not sure which jurisdiction you are in. In my jurisdiction pulling down your drawers in your front lawn is a criminal offense. Then proceeding to defecate is also a criminal offense. My understanding is that, in the US, you can get onto the Sex Offenders List just by peeing in public - that's a criminal offense.
> But violations are nonetheless generally prosecuted by the state. Even in private lawsuits, an individual has to show that a law was violated in order to prevail.
Depends on the suit - if you are suing someone for contempt of court (because they refuse to follow through on a judgement against them) then that is criminal. If you are suing to get that judgement in the first place, it's purely civil. Law enforcement does not get involved when you ignore the HOA and they sue you (because it is not a crime). Law enforcement only gets involved when you don't adhere to the judgement (because not adhering to a court order is a crime).
> You are correct that HOAs are not bound by Constitutional constraints, but I fail to see how that is germane to the matter at hand. Different governmental and quasi-governmental entities have different powers. So what? That doesn't change the central point: either you get decide what you can and can't do with your house, or someone else does.
Having one less outside party having authority over you is relevant. If you view outside parties as an irritation, the more parties there are that get to tell you what to do, the more irritation there is.
> It really is that simple. Attaching a label to the entity that makes the decisions changes nothing. If it quacks like a government...
Accuracy matters. Precision matters. HOA are not anywhere close to being some sort of government. They lack too many of the legal requirements.
Will all that being said, I'm probably not in your jurisdiction, so the cases I've presented to the court (in both criminal and civil matters) may not matter to you. The best way to proceed, if you want to stick to the claim that HOA have quasi-governmental powers, is for you to list the ways that they differ from any other contract that you sign, and then breech.
Because, from what I can see, the consequences of breeching the HOA rules is no different to the consequences of breeching any other contract.
In what way are the HOA rule-violations different from other contract-violations?
There is a difference: you can incur a debt to the HOA under a much wider variety of circumstances than you can incur an ordinary debt. An ordinary debt is incurred as a result of a one-off transaction, usually in exchange for a specific good or service, and requires your specific consent. An HOA can impose a fine on you at any time for a wide variety of reasons, some of which may not have even been in place when you bought your house.
> Any creditor can do that. I fail to see why you think the HOA is special in that regard.
It isn't special in that regard. That's the whole point. There is no distinction between something being "illegal" and something being "against HOA policy". That's the whole point.
The difference between an HOA and a regular creditor is not the enforcement mechanisms, it's the circumstances under which the debt is incurred in the first place.
> > Joining an HOA is exactly the same as becoming a legal resident or naturalized citizen of a country.
> Or signing a contract.
Yes, but again, the salient difference is not the contract, it's the terms of the contract. What distinguishes HOA "contracts" and the "contracts" that govern legal residency and citizenship from ordinary run-of-the-mill contracts is that the terms of HOA/goernment "contracts" are specifically open-ended. You don't know what your actual obligations are under the terms of this "contract" because they can (and often do) change after the contract is signed. But the power to change the rules is asymmetric. The HOA and the government can change the rules. You can't.
> criminal offences are processed differently to civil suits
So what? What does that have to do with the fact that both HOAs and governments can change the rules mid-game?
> HOA are not anywhere close to being some sort of government.
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree about that.
>
>Here:
>
>> it's really hard to draw a sharp line between that and the wrong color of shutters.
>
>> It's really easy - the former example is actually illegal in most places and the local LE will deal with you
>
> How do you think HOAs enforce their restrictions? When push
> comes to shove, disputes with HOAs get settled in courts,
> which are an arm of the state.
So? That doesn't make it illegal; going to court against an HOA is a civil matter, so the issue of whether something is illegal or not is irrelevant. Going to court because you broke the state's rules is a criminal matter.
When something is illegal, you call the cops and let the state prosecution handle it. When something isn't illegal, you have to directly sue the respondent(s) yourself and handle the matter yourself.
So, yeah, there's a big difference between getting prosecuted by the state in criminal court for defecating on your lawn and getting sued in civil court by the HOA for breaking the contract.
There's no circular reasoning there at all: one of those things ends up in a certain type of court, the other ends up in a different type of court.
> People have the exact same recourse against HOAs as they have against the state because the HOA's authority derives entirely from the state.
No, you have more recourse against the state when the state breaks the rules, and not just because the state has many more limitations on their rules than a HOA. For just one example, the state may not prohibit political speech of one party and encourage political speech of another party, while the HOA has no such limitation.
For that you have no recourse agains the HOA, but you *will* have recourse if the state attempted it.
> It really is just another level of government.
It really isn't.
There's a particularly large difference between criminal and civil trials.
There's a difference between what a juristic person is allowed and what an arm of the state is allowed (one of those two aren't allowed to suppress speech, for example, while the other can).
There's a difference in the enforcement that is allowed (for HOA: fines only, and then go to civil court for an order, for the state: arrest, then prosecution).
There's a difference in the levels of enforcement allowed (HOA has no choice but to launch civil proceedings, while the state is fully within its rights to use force, deadly or otherwise).
They really aren't the same. The rules of an HOA is a meeting-of-the-minds contract between two juristic persons. Any "contract" is not a contract if one of those people don't agree (signed under duress, for example).
The laws of the state does not require the citizen to agree; there is no contract because the citizen has to abide by those laws whether or not they agree to them.