HOA Nut House

Check your TX association statutes. Here it certainly is not only legal, but common. In Florida, there are many "snowbirds" who live most of the year in some other state. They sit on boards.

Really, an Arizonan in Texas as a 'snowbird.' There is no snow in Arizona, so are we making up these questions for agenda purposes?

huh? I was only commenting about Florida, not Texas. I do not venture a guess what the law is in Texas. I hear that is another country. ;-)

Oh and actually there IS snow in Arizona. I was in the worst snowstorm in my life outside of Flagstaff, Arizona. And I have lived in Chicago, and Denver, so that is saying something.

The only person here who seems to have an agenda is Anon1. That agenda seems to be to insult, inflame and disrupt.
That Anon1 would find anything remotely an "agenda" in what I said above is only testimony to her paranoia and hatefulness.

And Anon1, I am going to ask you again to stop your abusiveness. What you think you gain from it is beyond me. Perhaps all discussion will have to be moved to forums, to weed out the trolls. Your hostility serves no purpose at all.

What's the difference between forums and... and what? What is this? Why did Admin close the discussion(s)? I am lost here... I wish to finally tell Anon1 about my conversation with Molloy, but I don't know where and don't want to stick it somewhere out of context... and whenever I tried to post under my cyber name, I got a message that the name already belongs to somebody -- but this somebody is me and I was not allowed to use MY name apparently because it was recognized... Please help!

Oh, regarding the question of being on the board while residing partly in another state: Check your governing documents!

Mika, I can't speak for the Admin, but I suspect he closed it to stop the insults and abuse. All you have to do to post in the forum is sign in. I think you should do that and come join the discussion.

Anon1 has not logged in and I suspect she won't want to - I too would be embarrased to be "identified" if I said the things she did! Of course, you don't even have to use your real name to "sign up". Perhaps the admin will correct me but I think it is only a way he/she can track IP and verify who is abusing the forums.

I think the thread is "Legal Ramifications of Private Road Ownership"... that is now moved to the forums.

And although ridiculous to continue this absurdity....it was the question itself in it's wording a little off the wall in the 'facts' presented. First, if it has been released from Declarant control, the President no longer 'owns' the land the neighborhood sits on, each owner owns their own lots, subject to the restrictions for use placed on them. Second, if not still under Declarant control, that question would be easily answered as an 'Association' of owners if he still owns a lot, then the CC&Rs which mandate membership means he's a member, and as such free to 'volunteer', be elected or serve, or wrestle control as has happened in quite a number, it appears.

Since they are supposedly Associations of owners (ha), would be pretty hard to preclude any 'owner' from serving. And in most bylaws which outline basically just the 'functions' of the directors and requirements for meetings, quorums of directors not able to be physically present can fulfill their function with technology the way it is, by conference call.

And since it is clear 90% of those on the site, use psdeuos, Anon1 is just as 'identifying' as "Jake," "Reality Check," "Pajamas", "Smoking Mirrors" or any of those other psycho-sounding log ins.

Our differences clearly are of more of 'political' nature, and I hold with those many now who are joining in the third largest party now, the Constitutionalist Party, of which Ron Paul and many others now identify. And take your 'insults' as complements, because the Constitution is clearly a threat to many who hold other 'versions' of it's intent, and what the 'Rule of Law' actually is....

So, there is a 'slant' to this website that opposes my and many others 'political' beliefs.

And so the 'Nut House' continues, and truly there is 'action' and there is 'debate,' so continue your debates and misrepresentation and insults on prior postings...as those who can see through 'smoke and mirrors' can clearly see.

Bye, all....any of you who are actual Constitution believers, who do believe in 'inalienable' rights per it's 'intent.'

P.S. And with the exception of this year, Flagg has had a 'drought' and not even enough snow to open the Snow Bowl for many years now, and when it gets it, doesn't get much...and I was responding to the fact that it appeared 'Jake' with his first comment on the question tied the question in with 'snowbirds,' somehow.

And if you can give me a 'Constitutional' basis for the validity of these communities and excessive restrictive 'servitudes' imposed based in property law holdings by judicial decisions using a 'foreign' court, England, in just this century and well after the Constitution was signed and actually what the founders were attempting to escape, any control over their 'property', I'd continue the debate, but the only 'case' law for their validity is based upon judicial application using, as I said, a 'foreign' jurisdiction to validate them, contrary to the founder's intent, and well after the Constitution was written.

And that is truth....

Mika is correct.

In English common law theory, the Crown has radical title or the allodium (see not) of all land in England, meaning that it is the ultimate "owner" of all land.

Allodium: land freely held, without obligation of service to any overlord. Allodial land tenure was of particular significance in western Europe during the Middle Ages, when most land was held by feudal tenure.

Acutally, a cursory search of the internet yields some useful (and accurate) information - From an Australian law firm, discussin an Australian case I have excerpted a protion of the article "The Impact of Colonisation." And by the way, this DOES address the U.S. and the origins from old English common law are the same.

Rather than reinvent the wheel, here is a good description of where our "restrictions" on land use come from (and this is as applicable in the US as in Australia, since English common law was brought over to both from England):

IMPLICATIONS OF POSSESSORY TITLE: NOT ABSOLUTE OWNERSHIP
The ownership of land is unlike the ownership of chattel. As Hart explains, "Land is immovable and indestructible. Because it is immovable the law has had to recognise the needs of neighbours, giving rise to what may be called third-party rights, such as easements." Hart argues that land ownership has never been absolute and that planning law is only an aspect restricting the rights of landowners. He argues that fire prevention and health legislation also restrict private landowners’ rights. Hart considers that in modern times the restriction over private property "has necessarily become more restricted as the pressure on land has increased."
...
The concept of ownership by the Crown of all land is a modern one and its adoption in legal theory may have been related to imperial expansion in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries well after the decline of feudalism. Writing in 1896, Professor Jenks said that

“the theory had almost died a natural death when it sprang to life again in the most unexpected manner with the acquisition of the great English colonies. For if, as was the case, no subject could show a recognised title to any of the countless acres of America and Australia, at a time when those countries were first opened up by white men, it followed that, according to this relic of feudal theory, these acres belonged to the Crown. It may seem almost incredible that a question of such magnitude should be settled by the revival of a purely technical and antiquarian fiction.”

Mika was absolutely correct that our "Founding Fathers" did NOT want to do away with this - in fact, they USED it to confiscate property from "Native Americans" e.g. the "Indians".
She is also correct that our U.S. "Founding Fathers" WERE landowners and in fact, they thought only landowners should be entitled to vote!

...

“The English law of real property never developed a true theory of ownership.” "Title was, and still is in essence, possessory and moreover relative rather than absolute."
...
"The underpinning concepts of the Crown's radical title and individuals’ possessory title have shaped the level of legislative interference with private property rights."

That is true BOTH in the U.S. and Australia.

I do not know where on earth Anon1 comes up with her gross misunderstandings of law and history, but it is astonishing that anyone with such an inadequate background and education would be so belligerent about her "knowledge" to the point of consistently insulting others when she has no idea what she is talking about. Well, I guess it is not astonishing at all, since the ignorant frequently are belligerent about their ignorance as we have ample evidence of in the White House.

As to Anon1's offensive "Challenge" to "Where in the Constitution" does it grant all these powers of property restrictions? It doesn't, Anon1. And if you knew your history and your Constitution, you would also recall that the Constitution says those powers not specifically enumerated and granted to the Federal government are left up to the states.
So much for your theory that all property rights are "federal". (This is, by the way, the most outrageously ludicrous statement I have heard from anyone in a long long time.)

Were your bombastic belligerence not so pathetic, it would even be more annoying than it is. About 99% of your bald assertions of law and the Constitution are only a figment of your embittered mind, and are easily refuted. Anyone with more than a passing acquaintance with history, the law and the Constitution can see through your nonsense. However, I am also aware that many people have not looked into some of these issues vis-a-vis common law and the history of property ownership. My hope is that I and others can provide some counter and education in this discourse. Once again, your delusions will not help anyone - unless it provides you with some emotional outlet in which to vent all your venom and direct it to everyone around you (or this forum.) Unfortunately, that is at the expense of others, which does not seem to be of any concern to you at all. So, as the saying goes, one should always try to make "lemonade" out of a "lemon."

Homeowners need ACCURATE information if they are to protect themselves. And yes, an understanding of law and history is very helpful in this regard. But not some invented history intended to fuel useless argument.

I do not believe that Mika is a lawyer, and I do not believe she is a native born "American" (US citizen, not to be confused with South Americans or Canadians).
She has, however, armed herself with more than a passing knowledge of our US history and law - more, i fear than you Anon1 has. Ironic, isn't it, that an "immigrant" can be more knowledgeable on our own U.S. history than those who are most likely to blast "foreigners" for "not learning" our culture and history?
Somehow it fits.

Those most belligerent are usually the most ignorant.

The Constitution deals very little with property "rights" - mosty the 5th and 14th Amendments. Rephrasing my earlier comment, England re-energized old feudal concept of "ownership by the Crown" which had nearly been extinguished with "modern" (as compared to feudal) common law. Why? For the control of their newest colonies - specifically the U.S. (in this context). And it was in fact John Marshal who cited post-Independence history to support his (pre Worcester decision) that the Virginia militias had the right to deed Indian lands, because of a bit the "divine" right of conquest. And, he asserted that the King, through its Right to Conquest, ceded to the "several states" title to all lands discovered by the Europeans through "discovery". That meant that the US could grant deeds to Indian lands, subject only to the Indians' right of "occupancy".

After the Independence, the US gov't adopted a policy of "buying" Indian land as opposed to merely seizing title. The Continental Congress repudiated the conquest theory and the State or the "King's right" to the property. A few states were holdouts, however, and insisted on their right to deed INdian property to individuals - after the Treaty of Paris but before the Constitution was adopted. This became a bit of a problem when the U.S. then tried to guarantee the same property back to Indians by treaty. (Specifically, Hopewell North Carolina)... Oops. North Carolina legislators argued strenuously in the House that the Indians had no right to these lands and that North Carolina followed only the practice of the Crown. North Carolina believed that it had the same "rights" to hold "absolute title" as the King - to Indian lands.
With the Compact of 1802, the state of Georgia relinquished to the national government its western land claims (which became the states of Alabama and Mississippi). In return, the federal government promised to precipitate the relocation of the Indian tribes of Georgia, thus securing for Georgia complete control of all land within its borde

So you see, even the original "fathers" and the states disagreed radically - and much of this involved the relationship with the Indians. I do not personally believe that the decision to "buy" Indian property and engage in these "treaties" which were rampantly violated showed much of a great respect for individual property rights at least the Indians; rights. The Indians did not even have a concept of private ownership, and were abused by the US Government in these transactions.

Also, it was later that John Marshal, in 1832, wrote the decision in Worcester v. Georgia - reversing his earlier position and ruling that the lands Georgia "appropriated" from the Indians were in fact Cherokee lands - recognizing the Cherokee as a sovereign nation within the US Nation. The treaty between the United States and the Cherokee Nation was based on theprevious treaties between the the Indian nations and Great Britain. Accordingly, the United States received the Cherokee Nation into their "favor and protection. "The Cherokee acknowledged themselves to be under the protection of the United States and no other power. Protection did not imply the destruction of the protected. The manner in which this stipulation was understood by the American government was explained by the language and acts of the first president. The sixth and seventh articles stipulated for the punishment of the citizens of either country who may commit offenses on or against the citizens of the other. The only inference to be drawn from this was that the UnitedStates considered the Cherokees as a nation.

Trail of Tears
The legality of some of the "treaties" were highly questionable. The Cherokee Trail of Tears resulted from the enforcement of the Treaty of New Echota, signed under the provisions of the Indian Removal Act of 1830, which exchanged Native American land in the East for lands west of the Mississippi River, and resulted in the deaths of 1/3 of the Cherokees. The "Treaty" had never been accepted by the elected tribal leadership or a majority of the Cherokee people. President Andrew Jackson enforced it nonetheless, and sent federal troops to round up about 17,000 Cherokees in camps before being sent to the West. Most of the deaths occurred from disease in these camps.

So I return to that quote that seems so appropriate here: "property rights arise when it becomes economic for those affected by externalities to internalize benefits and costs". A bit convoluted sentence but it gets the idea across. So Indians didn't REALLY have property "rights" in these treaties - talk about an early "adhesion contract!" The Indians were driven out of their homes. And the CHerokees were not the only tribes who suffered under the "Indian Removal Act."