I-Team: Homeowners Hammered with HOA Arbitration Fees - KLAS-TV Channel 8 News Las VegasIn July of last year, a dispute over a budget ratification meeting went to non-binding arbitration under the Nevada Real Estate Division. It's a mandatory first step before going to court. Friedrich lost, and to the victor went the spoils. He was ordered to pay $22,000 in arbitration and attorneys fees. "I was expecting the worst, and the worst came true," he said.
Friedrich responded with a lawsuit challenging the arbitrator's authority to impose attorney's fees. It is a common practice among arbitrators selected by the Real Estate Division. Records obtained by the I-Team reveal a dozen recent awards in excess of $10,000 against homeowners. Some awards were as high as $20,000.
--------------
Fred Pilot sent this along, which we are talking about even though it happened in Vegas. This is a big issue. The whole idea of ADR is to cut costs. If lawyers can make five figures off it, courtesy of the "arbitrators," it makes you wonder if the process is just another lawyer-driven arm of the industry.
6 comments:
I believe the Nevada law concerning ADR is fundamentally flawed. The office of ombudsman is in the Real Estate Division, not a consumer protection agency.
The Commissioners who review the cases are not a jury of peers. The commissioners are listed as representatives: Attorney, Management Representative, Homeowner Representative, Accountant Representative, Developer Representative, Homeowner Representative, and Homeowner Representative.
Apparently, the legislature knows nothing about separation of powers, jury of peers, etc.
Arbitration is nothing more than a Privatized Justice system, based upon the same principals as privatized housing were consumers are mandated to participate and are left without accountability or transparency. Simply binding mandatory arbitration is a rigged game in which justice is dealt from an exclusive contract deck stacked against consumers just as housing associations are stacked against their members. Neither system is in the best interest of consumers because arbitration was originally created to resolve disputes between corporations and housing associations were originally created to economically benefit the developers. In both cases the consequences are the same most often, the consumer’s best interests will not be served and the consumer will pay and pay.
References-
Consumers Reports magazine - Locked out of the courts,
September 2009 edition pg. 6
So you want to go to Arbitration, found at Onthecommons.us
http://onthecommons.us/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=27&Itemid=44
Arbitration is nothing more than a Privatized Justice system, based upon the same principals as privatized housing were consumers are mandated to participate and are left without accountability or transparency. Simply binding mandatory arbitration is a rigged game in which justice is dealt from an exclusive contract deck stacked against consumers just as housing associations are stacked against their members. Neither system is in the best interest of consumers because arbitration was originally created to resolve disputes between corporations and housing associations were originally created to economically benefit the developers. In both cases the consequences are the same most often, the consumer’s best interests will not be served and the consumer will pay and pay.
References-
Consumers Reports magazine - Locked out of the courts,
September 2009 edition pg. 6
So you want to go to Arbitration, found at Onthecommons.us
http://onthecommons.us/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=27&Itemid=44
Arbitration is nothing more than a Privatized Justice system, based upon the same principals as privatized housing were consumers are mandated to participate and are left without accountability or transparency. Simply binding mandatory arbitration is a rigged game in which justice is dealt from an exclusive contract deck stacked against consumers just as housing associations are stacked against their members. Neither system is in the best interest of consumers because arbitration was originally created to resolve disputes between corporations and housing associations were originally created to economically benefit the developers. In both cases the consequences are the same most often, the consumer’s best interests will not be served and the consumer will pay and pay.
References-
Consumers Reports magazine - Locked out of the courts,
September 2009 edition pg. 6
So you want to go to Arbitration, found at Onthecommons.us
http://onthecommons.us/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=27&Itemid=44
Arbitration is nothing more than a Privatized Justice system, based upon the same principals as privatized housing were consumers are mandated to participate and are left without accountability or transparency. Simply binding mandatory arbitration is a rigged game in which justice is dealt from an exclusive contract deck stacked against consumers just as housing associations are stacked against their members. Neither system is in the best interest of consumers because arbitration was originally created to resolve disputes between corporations and housing associations were originally created to economically benefit the developers. In both cases the consequences are the same most often, the consumer’s best interests will not be served and the consumer will pay and pay.
References-
Consumers Reports magazine - Locked out of the courts,
September 2009 edition pg. 6
So you want to go to Arbitration, found at Onthecommons.us
http://onthecommons.us/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=27&Itemid=44
"The HOA industry will be better served with inexpensive dispute resolution, than with legislation that emasculates the HOA lien."
from "Homeowner Association Lien Foreclosure"
by Jonathan Olcott. Olcott & Shore, PLLC.
Olcott also says that you can trust HOA industry attorneys to not abuse the power to foreclose. Only non-HOA industry attorneys do that.
Post a Comment