Who gave Senator Kuehl the right to control OUR escrows?
by D. Vanitzian, J.D., Arbitrator
(c)2007 D. Vanitzian
June 19, 2007
The Honorable Shiela Kuehl
State Capitol, Room 5108
Sacramento, CA 95814
Re: SENATE BILL 127 IS A BAD BILL
OPPOSITION TO SENATE BILL 127
Dear Senator Kuehl,
Please file this opposition with the appropriate committees to lodge our opposition to Senate Bill 127. I am the spokesperson for the group known as HOAATM (Homeowners Against Association Tyranny & Manipulation) and we are now 75,257 members strong.
WE ARE STAKEHOLDERS. WE HAVE A DOG IN THIS FIGHT.
With all due respect Senator, your Senate Bill 127 is NOT ABOUT DISCLOSURES.
1. Senate Bill 127 creates roadblocks to free enterprise for both buyers and sellers. Assuming arguendo that most, BUT CERTAINLY NOT ALL, escrows are approximately 30 days, your Senate Bill 127 does a disservice to the millions of homeowners that are stuck owning and attempting to sell or 1031 exchange their "properties" whether or not they are located within common interest developments throughout California -- but most especially if they ARE located within common interest developments.
2. Senate Bill 127 is both pedestrian and myopic. Your Senate Bill 127 PRESUMES escrow periods are "30 days," when in fact some are closing in as little FIVE days. My husband is a 25-year veteran Realtor® and he can tell you he has witnessed properties close in as little as FOUR days -- and AT LEAST ONE that closed in 24 hours. Why do buyers have to be subject to your narrow interpretation of "escrow."
3. Senate Bill 127 predictably will, and does, interfere with the free-flow of inter- and intrastate COMMERCE in that, 1031 exchanges for example, that are able to close quickly and complete transactions, will be subject to a statute that will not only hinder those efforts, it will interfere with business, free trade, and prospective economic advantage for buyers and sellers alike -- be it one (1) day or thirty (30) days closing.
4. Senate Bill 127 conflicts with other existing statutes by placing contingencies that are unable to be satisfied, let alone be satisfied in a TIMELY MANNER -- let alone be satisfied pursuant to the state statute(s) existing or otherwise. THE PUBLIC IS IN NEED OF PROTECTION -- yet your bill EXEMPTS those who need that protection the most. Presently your office assistants are relaying to the public that "existing law" allows the buyer to "get out of the sale" within three days -- right. Big Deal! HAVE YOU EVER TRIED TO INVOKE THAT SECTION OF CODE TO GET OUT OF A PURCHASE? GOOD LUCK. Yet your staff states that phrase with such conviction your constituents will actually believe it.
Even with that illusive statute that your office claims lets reluctant buyers escape their sales agreement to/of purchase, Senate Bill 127 as it stands today (June 19, 2007) nails the coffin shut on millions of unsuspecting buyers and sellers by SURPASSING that 3-day escape clause. [how ridiculous is THA!] Senator Kuehl, if you REALLY WANTED TO ASSIST BUYERS AND SELLERS, BUT ESPECIALLY THOSE WHO ARE HANDICAPPED THE MOST (common interest development owners) THEN YOUR BILL WOULD UNEQUIVOCALLY STATE THAT ALL SUCH DOCUMENTS SHALL BE PRODUCED *PRIOR TO* EXECUTION OF SAID SALES AND/OR PURCHASE AGREEMENTS. Wouldn’t that be the SMART thing to do? That would eliminate LITIGATION. It would eliminate GRIDLOCK. It would eliminate any potential FISCAL IMPACT on the state. But it would also eliminate your porked up Senate Bill 127.
6. When your office was asked: WHERE IS THE PENALTY AGAINST THOSE IN POSSESSION OF SAID DOCUMENTS FOR THEIR NON-COMPLIANCE AND FAILURE TO PRODUCE? -- There is none.
The unfortunate reality regarding the information circulated by your office is MISLEADING at best.
(A) When asked to direct us (the public) to the section of Code where these items can be found, your aid says: "go to www.leginfo, its all there." (shaking head: oh brother!)
(B) Your office also no doubt with a straight face, informs callers that there is a $500 penalty existing in the statute against non-compliance. ARE YOU SERIOUS? PUH-LEEZ! GIVE US A BREAK! With all due respect Senator, you KNOW that statute is wholly ineffective and inapplicable to Senate Bill 127. Frankly you should be ashamed in allowing such statements to be made to the unsuspecting public who voted you into office and who do not know better. They actually BELIEVE YOU.
(6.1) The Civil Code Sections 1350–1378 (the Davis-Stupid Act) provides for $500 penalties for various items that are frankly, impossible to collect on or act upon. That statute to which your assistant refers, is a CRUEL RUSE that is meant to placate California owners who are losing thousands if not millions of dollars across this state because they are unable to adequately protect their assets which are located within a common interest development. (See, Vanitzian, Common Interest Developments (Thomson/West, 2006-2008).
(6.2) That Civil Code Section "allowing" common interest development owners to FILE A LAWSUIT in order to invoke that section of code, is inapplicable in the situation your statute creates. But then, YOU KNOW that don’t you?
Here’s why:
FIRST: the BUYER has no standing to invoke the statute because they do not yet own in a common interest development.
SECOND: the SELLER may not invoke that statute because in order to do so, the event in question must have come to pass. The Civil Code Sections alluding to the $500 fine (NOT PENALTY) can only be instituted AFTER 10 days have passed AND the homeowner association has failed to comply with a REQUEST. Even with that, the owner MUST PROVE IPSO FACTO that (a) the association was served with a request to comply; (b) that the association WILLFULLY failed to comply; (c) present proof of damages. (See, Vanitzian, Common Interest Developments (Thomson/West, 2006-2008).
THIRD: assuming arguendo that the useless Davis-Stupid Act’s $500 spit-fee does apply --> PLEASE explain how a measly $500 penalty which unenforceable compares to a sales constituting HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS IF NOT MILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN LOST SALES? How your aid could actually lead the public to believe what was said with a straight face, boggles intelligent minds. THIS is why the public does not trust politicians. Invoking that section of Code to apply the $500 "fine" REQUIRES filing a LAWSUIT.
FOURTH: Your Senate Bill 127 also PRESUMES that the seller will be able to assert a defense (SUE, LITIGATE) AFTER the sale, presumably against the saboteurs (i.e., management companies and boards of directors) but you are WRONG. Once the seller completes the sale, the seller no longer has standing as an association member to sue in that capacity. (See, Vanitzian, Common Interest Developments (Thomson/West, 2006-2008).
(6.3) Of course you KNOW that Civil Code Sections 1350–1378 place ALL burdens of production of documents regarding the "sale" on the SELLER. You also KNOW that the ONLY recourse a BUYER has is not against the saboteurs (i.e., management companies and association boards of directors) but against the seller. Senate Bill 127 kills the sale. It unilaterally prejudices the seller/owner and increases the burden of doing business for the everyday citizen. (See, Vanitzian, Common Interest Developments (Thomson/West, 2006-2008).
7. For Senate Bill 127 to be effective it must "per se" detail the items that can and cannot be demanded and a drop-dead deadline for compliance, the breach of which "stays" the sale. This alone will create conflicts in several areas of California statutes.
There is so much more that is wrong with this Senate Bill 127 that frankly, it is impossible to list it all in this memorandum.
Without the aforementioned items being addressed, this bill is absolutely toothless and as the British say, a "wank."
Very truly yours,
/s/
cc: Members of HOAATM
RELATED STORIES
KUEHL: PIMP MY HOA!!
Attention: All Real Estate Brokers and Agents the California Association of Realtors has sold you down the river -- let the litigation begin . . . Attention: All Insurance Brokers and Agents you will NEVER be able to sell insurance again like you used...
LETTER TO SEN. KUEHL RE: OPPOSITION TO SB- 127
Re: SENATE BILL 127 IS A BAD BILL OPPOSITION TO SENATE BILL 127Dear Senator Kuehl Please file this opposition with the appropriate committees to lodge our opposition to Senate Bill 127. I am the spokesperson for the group known as HOAATM (Homeowners...
SENATOR AANESTAAD: PIMP MY HOA!X75,257 HOAATM Members Want Senator Aanestaad to Get this Message: Stop Messing With Our Property Rights!!!X
Senate Bill No. 528 should really be called "How The California Legislature Takes Property Away Piecemeal Without The Guilt of Eminent Domain."
The Stark Reality: We're Running Out of Time
CONTRARY TO "Opinion Poll Pundits" who "borrow" (and that's being kind, "steal" is more the word) material from individuals offering to help their cause but then publish that material by putting their own name to it -- or -- CONTRARY TO other "Hot...
FIRED MANAGER CLEANS UP IN MORE WAYS THAN ONE
QUESTION: I'm a board member of my association. Four years ago, a prior board hired a manager whom this board just fired. We gave her two weeks to "clean up loose ends." Soon we heard the shredder churning more than usual but didn't think anything of it....
75,000 MEMBERS OF GROUP "HOAATM" PLEAD WITH GOVERNOR SCHWARZENEGGER TO VETO THESE BAAAAAD BILLS -- YOU PROMISED YOU WOULD LISTEN TO THE PEOPLE
The worst bills for owners in common interest developments with homeowner associations and boards of directors are making their way through the legislature like a runaway train and no brakes. HOMEOWNERS, IF YOU DO NOT HELP STOP THIS NOW -- YOU WILL BE IN...
Advertisement
Select Blogzz & click icon
BlogSpot FeedBurner CotoBlogzz BraveNet Y!360
Archived Issues
General Information
HOA Resources
Emergency numbers
Public Safety Resources
Crime Watch
Sex Offenders in the Area
Real Time Traffic Report
LA Times Orange County
Subscribe
- What is RSS?
Area Links
ORANGE COUNTY BLOGS:
R
To subscribe/unsubscribe to the CotoBuzz Journal or send Letters to the Editor : click here or send email to:
The CotoBuzz Journal P.O. Box 154 Trabuco Canyon, CA 92678 (509) 355-8895
Privacy Policy | Need Help? | Contact Us | Administrator: cotobuzz@yahoo.com
No comments:
Post a Comment