This 2-part Commentary on the H-O-A amendment boilerplate process entails a number of complex constitutional issues that are interlinked. Discussing one results in discussing another, etc. in order to fully understand the validity of the H-O-A legal scheme. [quote -- ]You can't see the forest for the trees[ --unquote ] is the result of this complexity obfuscated by the Restatement and by the national pro-H-O-A special interest lobbyists.

The Arizona appellate court ruling in Nicdon v. Desert Mountain needs to be appealed to the AZ supreme court on color of law denial of fundamental rights to property; on violations of the equal protection of the laws. While the issue at hand was an amendment to restrict short-term rentals to just 30 days, it raised several constitutional concerns.

What has been lacking in H-O-A litigation over the years, with all due respect to homeowner champion lawyers, is constitutional law expertise. I’ve read too many cases that touched upon constitutional arguments like free speech, due process, and equal protection of the laws but failed to delve deeply into these defects in the H-O-A legal scheme.

I have informed readers about the sticky-wicket that ties all these constitutional questions together as applied to the H-O-A legal structure and scheme; a sticky-wicket that must be resolved once and for all by the US Supreme Court.

Advocate need to re-edducate the public

HOA Constitutional GovernmentBy George K StaropoliJul 14, 2023