Condo and HOA Law by Donna DiMaggio Berger, Esq.: Time to Tighten Up Your Current Collection Policy: "Be aggressive with your foreclosure actions. This accomplishes several things: it sends a message to the rest of the paying members that you are doing something; it warns those who might be tempted to stop paying their assessments that you will do something, it allows the association (once it takes title) to either sell the property or lease it out short term to recoup some or all of the money owed and it allows the association to control who occupies the property and its condition."
---------------
I posted a link a while back to President Obama's request that banks not be so quick to foreclose. I received a comment to that post flagging this one, from Donna Berger's blog. She says to "be aggressive with your foreclosure actions."
I understand that associations need to collect delinquent assessments, or else the other owners end up paying for the ones who don't. But look--even CAI says to use foreclosure only as a last resort. Yet, within CAI there are always these lawyers and managers who tell their association clients something different, such as be aggressive; use foreclosure ASAP; use nonjudicial foreclosure if possible; and so forth.
So--which of these two approaches is the "real" CAI? The statements that emanate from CAI national, or the advice CAI members give their client associations?
22 comments:
Evan - I'm a member of CAI, however, I don't know if CAI has an "official" position on pursuing foreclosures.
President Obama's request to banks makes sense. But with homeowners associations it's much different. When owners fail to pay assessments there is the real possibility that the association may not be able to pay for liability insurance, pay for utilities that owners depend on, or maintain critical elements of buildings for which the association may be obligated to maintain.
An "agressive" foreclosure action doesn't imply that the association isn't able to entertain payment plan options or other forms of resolution with the owner during the pending foreclosure. But the association has a fiduciary obligation to the other owners to pursue delinquent assessments with vigor.
Best,
Kevin
"I feel comfortable in taking those steps necessary to enforce my client's legal rights, and if that means that ultimately somebody may go through this foreclosure process, it's unfortunate, but it is a consequence of their own making."
-HOA lawyer Tom Newton
After a couple failed to pay $380 in HOA dues, he foreclosed and sold their home for $2,200 to recover the $380, plus his legal fees.
"Homeowners Association Sells Disabled Couple's Home"
September 26, 2007
Mr. Newton was mentioned on this blog back on April 24, 2005:
I notice that recently CAI attorneys have been busily denying that any of them get wealthy doing foreclosure actions over delinquent assessments. That's to offset the charge that the HOA foreclosure practices tend to benefit attorneys more than HOAs or owners. Well, here's an example of a foreclosure specialist who seems to be doing pretty nicely. It also refutes the charge that hardly any foreclosure actions lead to actual foreclosure:
When it comes to collecting delinquent property association fees from homeowners, Tom L. Newton Jr. handles far more accounts than anyone else in Bexar County. In 2004, his signature was on the notice of foreclosure in almost 90 percent of all cases. By his own declaration, Newton says, "I'm just the best at it." Dozens of homeowner associations call on Newton when their efforts to collect dues and fees are unsuccessful. If the accounts get delinquent enough, the association can actually foreclose on the house. Newton files hundreds of lawsuits each year for "debt and damages," or for "notice of foreclosure." Of the 370 notices of foreclosure filed in 2004, according to Real Estate Foreclosures Inc., 53 actually went forward to a county auction. In most cases, the houses became the property of the homeowner association.
And I'd be willing to be that in others, friends of the lawyers, property managers, and/or HOA board members are given inside-information on the sales of HOA-foreclosed homes for pennies on the dollar.
Even if "hardly any foreclosure actions lead to actual foreclosure," it still means that an unknown number of home owners across the country have been threatened with foreclosure. Given the secrecy with which HOAs are allowed to operate, we can never really know how many homeowners have been bullied in such a manner.
There's a saying among conservatives and libertarians that "every action of the government is backed with the threat of violence at gunpoint."
Likewise, every action by an HOA is backed with the threat of foreclosure. But the self-proclaimed proponents of individual private property rights -- who were rightfully outraged by the Kelo decision regarding eminent domain abuse -- continue to be fanboys of one of the biggest threats to individual homeowners in America today.
At least the victims of eminent domain abuse are compensated. The victims of HOA abuses have to pay for the boot stomping on a human face -- forever. If that boot is privatized and corporate, the Ayn Randians will just nod in approval and/or turn their heads the other way.
The proponents of tort-reform -- another conservative cause -- aren't doing any better. While Republicans want to solve the problem of individuals suing corporations, they must be fine with HOA corporations litigating against individual homeowners.
With the advantages that HOA corporations have over individual homeowners, working within their system is a pointless waste of time. Ask people like Barbara Hogan, who has tried. The political dilemma for the right-of-center folks is that the only way to change the behavior of HOA corporations is through legislation, and they will never admit that.
It's like asking Al Gore to admit that global warming alarmism is a pseudoscience and a scam. Hell will freeze over first; and global warming will be blamed when it does.
Unlike other businesses, there is no market mechanism for HOA corporations to treat homeowners as "customers." Given the legal framework in which HOA corporations operate, the profit-motive creates incredibly perverse incentives, where Adam Smith's invisible hand has become a fist beating down homeowners.
From Ms. Berger's blog post:
> As a Managing Shareholder of Katzman Garfinkel & Berger (KG&B),
> I have witnessed the dramatic effect that the downturn in the economy
> has dealt many communities here in South Florida and across the state.
{ . . . }
> History has taught us, however, that there are always those who survive
> and even thrive in tough times! My team of community association
> attorneys and I started to ask ourselves: What should communities be
> thinking about right now in terms of saving money, recouping lost money
> and even making money?
{ . . . }
> Rethink your traditional collection policy in light of today’s
> economic realities.
When the economy gets bad, companies lay-off employees. The HOA model of corporate government takes the same philosophy.
What the Ayn Randian collectivists seem to forget, or don't care about, is that a community is made up of individuals. If the HOA corporation is have a hard time, it is because the individuals that make up the community are having a hard time.
Unlike a community of neighbors, the HOA corporate solution is to replace the individuals with ones who can generate revenue for the company.
> The longer the delay in commencing collection efforts these days,
> the greater the chance that the delinquency will balloon to an
> unmanageable size;
But adding late fees and legal fees, combined with the typical HOA "priority of payments" scam accounting practice, doesn't cause the "delinquency" to balloon to an unmanageable size?
Be sure to read her follow-up post, "Spend $$’s to Recoup More $$’s."
> The first thing you want to do is to make sure that your governing
> documents provide you with all the right tools to deal with your
> foreclosure and other issues.
{ . . . }
> Adding late fees (if you don’t already have them) and increasing the
> amounts you can charge for late fees and interest to the “highest
> amount permitted by law”.
{ . . . }
> Add an acceleration of payments clause in the event installments
> are not timely paid. This gives the association a larger hammer
> to collect for the whole year which obviously benefits cash flow
…because the economy isn't squeezing homeowners enough.
I'm sure that one cost-cutting measure that locusts like Berger, et al., haven't recommended to their clients is to find less expensive legal representation. Because the communities they care so much about deserve only the best.
UPDATE: Something just occurred to me while writing the above. You could probably take every Community Associations Institute press release, newsletter, public statement, etc. and replace the word "community" with "corporation," and not change the meaning one bit. The only thing that would change would be the PR(opaganda) slant.
For example, "We work to preserve the financial interests of the community" would become "we work to preserve the financial interests of the corporation."
Kevin--Thanks for your comment. I hope you will keep contributing.
I know that associations with high delinquency rates can't get insurance or borrow money, and I know that this even affects the ability of unit owners to sell because buyers can't get mortgage insurance. They do need to deal with delinquencies or everybody suffers. And if that's what Donna Berger means, then I agree.
However, the tone of her post doesn't seem to reflect CAI's own policy positions.
Take a look at CAI's "Rights and Responsibilties," where it says that directors should "Initiate foreclosure proceedings only as a measure of last resort." You can see it at: R & R.
(However, I'm wondering if that position has changed. Here is something I need to check out: I note that in the public policy section of their site, there is no
"last resort" language in the version of R & R they have there. That "last resort" language has been in CAI publications for a long time, so I'm wondering if this is a policy change. Hey, Tom Skiba and/or Frank Rathbun! Do you know what's up with that?)
In any event, the larger issue this highlights is the difference between CAI national and their lawyer members. CAI national takes high-minded positions on every issue and emphasizes how reasonable they are. Whenever they testify before state legislators who are considering regulation of association foreclosure abuse, CAI tells them "We advocate for reasonable collections measures--foreclosure is a last resort only!"
But then they bestow honors on lawyers who think those CAI-national positions are ridiculous. There are some CAI-affiliated lawyers whose law firms are really more like collection agencies. Some of them would laugh in your face if you said they should use foreclosure as a last resort. (I'm not saying Donna Berger is one of those lawyers, but believe me, I know they exist because I've had heated arguments with them.)
And guess what? CAI national also wants association assessments to be reclassified as not being "consumer debt," which would exempt these lawyers from the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, leaving them free to do whatever they want to delinquent owners.
After hearing enough HOA and condo foreclosure horror stories, some state legislatures have finally started to realize that owners need protection from associations and their lawyers. I think lawyers should really be grateful for that, because left to their own devices, I think some of these lawyers would kill their golden goose. Right now, foreclosure is a last resort for banks and local government, but community associations want to race to the courthouse steps. This sort of thing is turning "homeowner association" into a pejorative term.
But thanks again for contributing, Kevin--and please do it again.
In distinguishing condos from HOAs:
With respect to the remark that "the other owners end up paying for the ones who don't" - there is an inherent and unfounded presumption that the HOA must exist in the first place and that these "costs" simply must be allowed to accrue.
Many of these costs in an HOA often occur solely as a result of the existence of the HOA in the first place. D&O policies, other HOA insurance policies, HOA employees, HOA compensation to directors and officers, the litigation provoked by attorneys specializing in HOAs where the HOA is a party, etc. If there were no HOA these costs simply would not exist.
As to other costs there are ways of reducing, controlling, or eliminating them. For example, the HOA can dispose of its property. In many cases, the HOA can also convey streets, etc. Let's face it, the city/county was relieved of responsibility of paying for them or maintaining them and should be thankful that the expenses have been borne privately for so long. To the extent that "other owners end up paying", what about the fact that the targeted owners are paying for fundamental infrastructure etc. through taxes without getting services and then are expected to pay again to a private corporation that may or may not provide the services?
I reject the notion that these costs are unavoidable. If you eliminate the HOA or its "amenities" (forced liabilities) then you eliminate the costs. The HOA can also be forced out of the "business" of enriching vendors by allowing its corporate charter to lapse. At that point they have no capacity to sue.
Of course the term homeowners association has substantial potential to be seen pejoratively. When a local government entity is privatized as in the case of HOAs, the attendant loss of checks and balances on its powers that would otherwise be in place creates a perfect climate for sharp elbowed legal tactics and frivolous litigation. The lawyers take over rather than serve as advisers they would otherwise be if they served in an analogous role in municipal government. Every friction point becomes an opportunity for lucrative litigation no matter how frivolous the issue. That's why the media is filled with stories about silly, ridiculous lawsuits coming out of HOAs.
Current flawed public policy favoring the privatization of local government is to blame. Want this to stop? Reverse that policy.
Anonymous @ April 4, 2010 8:42:00 AM CDT is absolutely correct. * One thing that advocates of HOAs (and HOA abolitionists) often fail to distinguish is differences between condominiums and single-family housing. **
There is no reason to apply condominium policies to single-family housing.
If HOAs "amenities" like private swimming pools, private parks, private tennis courts, and other common property, cannot be self-sustaining based on per-user fees, like any other private business, then those private amenities should not exist. That's supposed to be the capitalist way.
Instead, the HOA corporation is given preferential treatment by the law, because it is Too Big To Fail(™). And it is Too Big To Fail(™) because it is given preferential treatment by the law.
The existence of the amenities and "common property" is used as a mechanism to justify the perpetuation of the HOA corporation and its privatized form of tyranny (see comments by our fine host here, here, and here).
That "associations with high delinquency rates can't get insurance or borrow money, and I know that this even affects the ability of unit owners to sell because buyers can't get mortgage insurance. They do need to deal with delinquencies or everybody suffers," should be an argument for the abolition of HOAs in the case of single-family housing.
Again, condos need some kind of structure, perhaps reducing the owners to renters or forcing owners to serve on the board, since the current model is not sustainable.
* Anonymous has articulated something I have been trying to do so for a while now. I'm going to steal some of his/her comments in the future.
** I also think our fine host, who falls into neither category, made that mistake back in 2004 (March 12 and March 13).
While I believe that much of the professor's reasoning was flawed, exactly because it did fail to distinguish between the needs of condos and single-family housing, his detractors at the time seem to have forgotten that (1) he was offering some realistic and sensible proposals to protect home owners, and (2) he has done more good on this issue than most self-proclaimed advocates of individual home ownership and private property rights.
For the record, I'm one of those people who think that HOAs for single-family housing should be abolished. However beautiful the theory of neighborhood associations and privatized government may be, reality -- especially in the current real estate market -- has exposed HOAs as unsustainable and a danger to home ownership.
The problem with HOA abolition, as the professor has pointed out in the past, is that there are many powerful political and economic interests invested in their continuance. Among them are the perceptions, whether valid or not, of the homeowners themselves.
You would think the banks might be interested in weighing in on CAI's business practices. After all CAI attorneys are quick to file foreclosure actions in order to extort primarily non-assessment items - jeopardizing the bank's likelihood of collecting on the notes. Homeowners don't have much interest in paying on the note once divested of their homes by an HOA attorney.
As far as "protecting" homeowners, let's see what's happening: Nebraska just passed a law to enable HOAs to foreclose - thus ensuring the cancer will spread to that state. Ohio SB 187 passed the senate and is in the house. This despicable piece of legislation was clearly written by CAI foreclosure attorneys. The priority of payment scam that other states have had to adopt protections against is the only way that HOAs will be permitted to operate. This won't be good for anyone EXCEPT the HOA management company and HOA attorney. Routinely, the only "help" legislators consider is "expedited foreclosure" for HOAs under the theory that this saves money for the HOA.
Hooray to the anonymous above who made the observation about replacing "community" with "corporation". I have suggested for some time that homeowners use the phrase "HOA corporation" instead of "association" when in the courtroom. The reason is that "association" is somewhat benign and quite misdescriptive. An involuntary membership corporation is not anywhere close to a benign, voluntary association. "Community" is also separate from the corporation.
CAI would like you to believe that the HOA corporation and the community are one and the same, but they are not. Community is an abstract concept - not capable of suing or being sued. An HOA corporation does not represent a community. As a private corporation, an HOA corporation is at best just one of the members.
You will never see a CAI attorney refer to the HOA as "the Corporation". Ensure that you do to help set the jurors and the judge straight on the fact that this is an HOA corporation and it only operates in the best interest of those that control its board - not the residents of the subdivision.
-ICdeLight
Evan - Thanks for your response. I appreciate the dialog on your website. I'll offer a few responses to some of the comments above.
First, private land use arrangements such as restrictive covenants have existed for hundreds of years. In a single-family home subdivision an HOA is typically established to maintain architectural controls. Often, there is a piece of common property in the subdivision owned, maintained and insured by the HOA. It's the most practical way of taking care of common property. I've never seen a set of restrictive covenants that the owners can't amend. If enough owners want to abolish the CC&Rs, there are mechanisms to do that.
Another commenter above suggested that HOA's are quasi-governmental agencies. That's correct. And every HOA I have dealt with has checks and balances just like a typical government. Don't like the Board? Petition for a recall and get yourself elected. Don't like a provision the CC&Rs? Get enough of your neighbors who agree with you to amend. It's that simple.
Lastly, I am a CAI lawyer who frequently refers to associations as corporations. In my jurisdiction, HOA's must establish some type of corporate status, typically as a nonprofit. But at the same time, they are also communities that owners voluntarily buy into and become members of the corporation. I'm not sure how referring to HOA's as corporations would sway a judge or jury.
> I understand that associations need to collect delinquent assessments,
> or else the other owners end up paying for the ones who don't.
But that's true of any creditor.
Eg, if Consumer X defaults on his credit card, or medical bills, or whatever, then the creditors have to pass those costs on to their other customers.
But do credit card companies, hospitals, etc. have the right to foreclose on the home of Consumer X? (Serious question, since I actually do not know.)
If not, why not? And if not, why should HOA corporations receive preferential treatment from the law?
An HOA or condo association isn't just "any creditor." They are secured creditors, meaning that your obligation to pay them is secured by an interest in your property. They have a security interest in your property, just like your bank has a mortgage, which is a security interest in your property. You don't pay, they get the property, to the extent of the unpaid secured debt.
How did your association get that security interest? In your CC&Rs, you agreed to give that security interest to the association. You may not like that, but that's the way the law sees it. It's in the document. Just like the bank's foreclosure rights are in the note and the mortgage, and that right is also on the deed (just as we often call your CC&Rs "deed restrictions")--same idea.
But your credit card company and the hospital are unsecured creditors. If you don't pay, they have to get a judgment against you and then execute it by seizing your assets (bank accounts, wages, baseball card collection, etc.), which is hard and often not very productive. They don't have any existing interest in your property that they can quickly and easily foreclose on to satisfy the debt.
The reason associations get this treatment? Two reasons: one is the contract, and the other is state statutes that authorize these lien rights and establish the priority of the various liens--first mortgages and later ones, taxes, association assessments, bills owed to others, etc.
The idea is that if Wells Fargo Credit Card Services loses some money, they are a big corporation that can chase down creditors, fight with them, sell the debt to a collection agency, write off the loss, and generally make it part of their business. But if your HOA doesn't get paid, the rest of the neighbors have to pay it, and that can start everybody down a slippery slope. And nobody expects your HOA or condo association, run by volunteers with day jobs, to chase down the assets of everybody who doesn't pay their assessments.
That's the explanation--you may not like it, but there it is.
Except that in Texas, HOAs did not have any authority to foreclose until a Supreme Court decision in 1987 where the homeowners were not even represented.
In Nebraska, HOAs did not have this power until the governor signed a law this year.
The same could be said for many other states. Industry is pushing for nonjudicial foreclosure and "expedited" foreclosure for HOAs. HOAs existed long before HOAs had foreclosure power. The power to foreclose is immediately co-opted by the debt-collector HOA management and HOA attorneys to extort non-assessment monies from the homeowners. If the theory was that HOAs need the money so bad that they need the power to foreclose, why is it that these "professionals" recommend that the HOA corporation be paid last? The HOA is often never paid at all in preference for the management companies and HOA attorney vendors.
California, Arizona and other states have had to outlaw this practice. This doesn't prevent the HOA management companies from demanding homeowners to waive their rights under the statutes as a condition of creating a payment plan. Where other states have had to outlaw the SOP of HOA management companies, Ohio SB 187 makes the "priority of payment" scam the only way HOAs are permitted to operate. Do you really think that homeowners consent to any of this?
The arguments for the power of foreclosure still fail to be convincing. In the case of an HOA corporation, there are simply times when the best course of action is to go out of business rather than to continue to drag down the entire neighborhood socially and economically.
Forced membership in a corporation by virtue of land ownership is a concept that is outdated and backwards. If this is to be maintained then why not give homeowners the same level of protection as a shareholder in a publicly traded company by making the HOAs subject to something akin to securities laws?
Force the HOA to tender CCRs to any who ask for free like a prospectus. No more management companies demanding hundreds of dollars for a copy they won't stand behind.
Force the HOA to divulge records under penalty of sanctions for the HOA corporation and its board members personally.
Declare all private fining unlawful or recognize that the HOA must likewise be subject to fining by homeowners .
Eliminate transfer fees - one of the newest scourges in HOA land.
Make membership voluntary. Actually this last one would pretty much prevent the above from happening. The only way HOA vendors get away with things now is due to involuntary membership.
Kevin said...
Evan - I'm a member of CAI, however, I don't know if CAI has an "official" position on pursuing foreclosures.
Dear Kevin,
Where have you been? Lets talk the truth about CAI and some of their henchmen, who employ tactics that are beyond, illegal, unjust, immoral, unethical, criminal, terroristic, and sociopathic. All some of the "credentialed professionals," need is one willing (greedy, jealous, vendetta driven) board member and an innocent homeowners life is over. I come from a "group," where a CAI "credentialed professional," was "involved," with a board member, on a "personal level." The terror and injustices to follow are truly unthinkable, yet, they kept lying, lying and lying to whomever and anyone they could, to cover the crimes, of targeting innocent homeowners, making up charges (when in fact they don't own the property, assess for it, insure it, maintain it, or have any involvement in the finances of the targeted association and their individual first victim, as they saw as "easy to get.") The life destruction following the one of these "attacks," is a tragedy.
Dr. Someone in a former post to this site said it best:
Anonymous said...
"They count on getting you isolated and beating you down in private." And, this is exactly why innocent people who owed nothing, or, no one are homeless!"
This is why the terror tactics of far too many of these abusive groups and their hired talent is "The New Domestic Violence."
Not for a moment, do I think your group wants to "foster," anything but hate, conflict, terror, vilence, discrimination, vengence, lottery sized pay days for some attorneys, and whomever and whatever else they can make up!
I know only too well, as in addition, I am a former legitimate board member, who was target in one of these horrors! Wake up Kevin. But, then, I am sure you could care less, as with most of the other s that make up your gang!
Anonymous above - your message is right on target. In VA, home of Gillman, the legislature decided to "overturn" a VA Supreme Court Constitutional ruling on fines, and not only enables fines BUT allows HOAs to foreclose - nonjudiciously- to collect those fines. Certainly no one "agreed" to that.
If we were talking ONLY about assessments, I probably wouldn't be as repulsed by the whole system but we are not. The bulk of the money collected is for JUNK fees, penalties and the biggest scam of all - attorney fees.
As to the priority of payment scam, there is an excellent write up about it and what it will do in Ohio (and then trotted over to a state near you) at http://hoanewsnetwork.com/media/ohio_hoa_bill_sb_187_passed_the_senate_and_is_in_the_ohio_house.php.
This hearts and flowers concern about these poor owners who have to make up for delinquent owners is laughable at best. No one REALLY believes that bunk.
Our goal is to move assessments to the top of the priority list and to impress upon owners that paying assessments is critical to keeping their home.
When it comes to collecting assessments, boards want quick, effective results and want to be kept informed. In short, you want results you can measure. That’s where HindmanSanchez’s “Strength in Association®” works for you:
We have developed successful alternatives when traditional collection methods fail, including the use of foreclosures and receiverships. By taking a proactive, aggressive approach, your association can quickly recover the assessments you are owed.
"Make membership voluntary. Actually this last one would pretty much prevent the above from happening. The only way HOA vendors get away with things now is due to involuntary membership."
You're using the wrong paradigm. HOAs are not private membership clubs. They are -- as the owner of this blog pointed out in his 1994 book "Privatopia: Homeowner Associations and the Rise of Residential Private Government" -- a private form of local government. You are no more a "member" of this government any more than you are a "member" of whatever town or county in which you reside. You automatically and involuntary become a "member" by the mere act of entering or purchasing real property within their jurisdiction -- just as is the case with HOAs.
Anonymous above -(Except that in Texas,) your message is right on target. In VA, home of Gillman, the legislature decided to "overturn" a VA Supreme Court Constitutional ruling on fines, and not only enables fines BUT allows HOAs to foreclose - nonjudiciously- to collect those fines. Certainly no one "agreed" to that.
If we were talking ONLY about assessments, I probably wouldn't be as repulsed by the whole system but we are not. The bulk of the money that triggers a foreclosure in HOAs is for JUNK fees, penalties and the biggest scam of all - attorney fees.
As to the priority of payment scam, there is an excellent write up about it and what it will do in Ohio (and then trotted over to a state near you) at http://hoanewsnetwork.com/media/ohio_hoa_bill_sb_187_passed_the_senate_and_is_in_the_ohio_house.php.
This hearts and flowers concern about these poor owners who have to make up for delinquent owners is laughable at best. No one REALLY believes that bunk.
Anon to Fred Pilot:
Fred, I would agree that they should not be given the benefit of being treated as private membership clubs. However, that is exactly the argument the HOA corp uses in the courtroom. "Choice" is the myth that local government utilize while mandating these abominations. The IRS also treats HOA assessments as nondeductible membership dues rather than property taxes.
You are correct that they have been given the authority of government - but that is precisely why the concept of involuntary membership deserves termination. If they are a private club then membership should not run with the land. If they are a local government, then residency should determine the right to vote and other protections afforded. As it stands now, the corporate structure is used primarily to disenfranchise all the owners/residents/citizens, their payments are not recognized as taxes, and they have none of the protections that local government is obligated to recognize under state and federal constitutions.
Since governmental police powers cannot be unlawfully delegated to a private corporation, one should be permitted to terminate "membership" in the HOA corporation. When push comes to shove, the HOA corporation will reject that it is local government because that would mean open records, open books, open election, due process, etc. - the denial of which are the lifeblood of the CID industry.
Kevin said...
Evan - I'm a member of CAI, however, I don't know if CAI has an "official" position on pursuing foreclosures.
Dear Kevin,
Where have you been? Lets talk the truth about CAI and some of their henchmen, who employ tactics that are beyond, illegal, unjust, immoral, unethical, criminal, terroristic, and sociopathic. All some of the "credentialed professionals," need is one willing (greedy, jealous, vendetta driven) board member and an innocent homeowners life is over. I come from a "group," where a CAI "credentialed professional," was "involved," with a board member, on a "personal level." The terror and injustices to follow are truly unthinkable, yet, they kept lying, lying and lying to whomever and anyone they could, to cover the crimes, of targeting innocent homeowners, making up charges (when in fact they don't own the property, assess for it, insure it, maintain it, or have any involvement in the finances of the targeted association and their individual first victim, as they saw as "easy to get.") The life destruction following the one of these "attacks," is a tragedy.
Someone in a former post to this site said it best:
Anonymous said...
"They count on getting you isolated and beating you down in private." And, this is exactly why innocent people who owed nothing, or, no one are homeless!"
This is why the terror tactics of far too many of these abusive groups and their hired talent is "The New Domestic Violence."
Not for a moment, do I think your group wants to "foster," anything but hate, conflict, terror, vilence, discrimination, vengence, lottery sized pay days for some attorneys, and whomever and whatever else they can make up!
I know only too well, as in addition, I am a former legitimate board member, who was target in one of these horrors! Wake up Kevin. But, then, I am sure you could care less, as with most of the other s that make up your gang!
THE SCAMS of "THE SCAMSTERS,"(c)!!!!
Post a Comment