Mika Sadai's comments on newspaper article about her litigation

Mika Sadai sent me the following proposed op-ed piece that the Arizona Daily Star declined to publish. The op-ed represents Mika's reaction to an article that the Star published on April 23 about her litigation with her HOA. In an e-mail to me, Mika said she would "send you in a separate email my rejected Op-Ed, and request that you give it publicity in your blog, together with the exposure of the Arizona Daily Star policy. I know that I don't have to convince you that the subject IS interesting..."
The reference to the "Arizona Daily Star policy" concerns the decision not to publish it, which they justified by saying the op-ed was "not very interesting."

So, here it is. I have no personal knowledge of any of the facts contained in the op-ed, but it should interest a good number of people, in that there are many bitterly disputed elections in HOAs, in AZ and elsewhere. This piece presents Mika's side of the disputed election issue in detail, and her beliefs concerning the relevance of that issue to the entire lawsuit.


ARE HOAs ABOVE THE LAW?
I commend the Star for its front page story ("$200,000 Neighborhood Dispute", April 23) about the rarely covered subject of homeowners associations in general and my legal fight in particular. Oddly, despite the fact that more than one million Arizonans (60 million Americans nationwide) are subjected to HOAs’ regime and the reality that almost all new construction comes with an attached mandatory HOA package, the issue of those private mini-governments takeover of our landscape and lives is hardly ever brought to light or discussed publicly. Unfortunately, this article cannot encompass this highly important subject and is limited to a response to your last Friday story.

Reading your story, one might get the impression that what your reporter has characterized as a "neighborhood dispute" is about a garbage can or some other petty items. Although HOA busybodies are known for their relentless obsession with garbage cans, in reality my lawsuit is about illegal elections that were conducted by my HOA six years ago, and in fact no garbage can has ever even been mentioned during the past six years of litigation.

In a nutshell, A small group of HOA zealots (known in my neighborhood as the "Loud Minority"), who were unhappy with the results of the annual election in 1998 that put them out of power, with the support of a fired management company and its attorney, attempted to undo the election by recalling the board and holding a custom-made special election. The procedure employed, at the direction and instructions of the management’s attorney, was replete with violations of the HOA bylaws and Arizona statutes, and those violations are the essence of my lawsuit.

The reporter mistakenly stated that I was recalled at the special election, whereas in fact the recall attempt failed for insufficient votes. Nonetheless, at the direction of the attorney the association held elections of new directors, in clear violation of the law, and the newly-elected board took over the governance of my association, returning the control and power to the "Loud Minority" gang and reinstating the fired management company.

Fair elections and proper election procedure are fundamental to democracy and public affairs. In a board-controlled homeowner association, elections are the only means for the members to affect their destiny, and violation of the election procedure is a flagrant denial of homeowners rights. My lawsuit requested the court to issue a declaratory judgment as to the legality of the 1998 election and the validity of its outcome.

In six years of litigation, with huge piles of paperwork and a total of more than $500,000 expended by both sides, the court has not yet addressed the illegal election. The association has made numerous attempts during these past years to dismiss the claims on various grounds, instead of adjudicating them on their merits in a trial by jury. Your article mistakenly stated that the suit was eventually dismissed but was filed anew. In fact, the suit that was dismissed was not the original but the new supplementary lawsuit, but was reinstated after said dismissal was reversed by the Court of Appeals.

The failure of the court to address the illegal election has created a monstrous litigation vortex. The HOA, through its illegal board and its insurance-financed attorneys, are making all efforts to avoid a jury trial and adjudication on the merits, because they know they are likely to lose.

Due to the reluctance of the State to interfere with HOAs’ affairs, viewing them as private disputes, litigation is the only means a homeowner has for correcting the wrongs and enforcing the law upon a violating HOA. When a court of law fails to address such violations, it effectively sets HOAs above the law and leaves the homeowners powerless with no means of redress.

Most homeowners are apathetic and disinterested in their HOAs’ affairs since they never actually chose to be members of those mandatory associations that were set up by land developers. Ironically, the State sanctions those private associations and provides them extraordinary unsupervised powers and controls over their subjects – the homeowners – in total disregard of the very few rights provided by law to the homeowners.

Power corrupts, and it’s the duty of the court to prevent such corruption. When the court fails to fulfill its duty, it gives a green light to more corruption and further violation of law. The issue is not a garbage can; the real issue is: Are HOAs above the law?