If I talk about something called a Home Owner's Association, would you expect that to be some sort of grouping of home owners? That's logical surely? It seems it isn't quite so simple...
"The HOA directors in all five neighborhoods and the real estate partners who developed the neighborhoods are the same people: Bagwell's wife, Susan; Bagwell's longtime business partner, Southlake investor Dale Crane; and Bagwell himself.
Two other people sit as members on all five HOA architectural control committees. They work for Bagwell companies. The all-important architectural committees have the power over homebuilding plans and homeowner plans to improve their property.
In their lawsuit, the homeowners assert that Bagwell and his associates run the HOAs in an arbitrary, capricious and discriminatory manner. The structure doesn't allow homeowners to participate in any HOA decisions..."
According to the article in the Dallas Morning News:
- There are five separate HOAs covering five separate neighbourhoods, all controlled by the same six people. None of those own homes in the neighbourhoods
- Bagwell's [the developer] real-estate partnerships, which own vacant lots in the still-developing neighborhoods, are the only property owners who have voting rights in the HOAs. That means homeowners have no way to participate.
- Homeowners are not allowed to select their own homebuilders, pool contractors, roofers, irrigation companies, fence builders or landscape architects. Instead, Bagwell and his associates require them to select those contractors from an HOA-approved list.
- Covenants, conditions and restrictions that govern the HOAs' structure and activities "contain provisions which vest Bagwell with the putative authority to amend or abolish any aspect of the CCRs, in his sole discretion, at any point after their filing," .... Bagwell calls all the shots and his rules amount to a constantly "moving target," according to the suit [filed by a group of homeowners].
- A fee – ranging from $50 to $600, depending on the issue – must accompany each building plan or exterior-modification design submitted to the architectural committee. If the committee rejects a plan, resubmissions require another fee. This creates "the obvious incentive to deny submitted plans and proposals on an arbitrary and capricious basis to force homeowners to pay additional review fees with each additional submittal," according to the ...lawsuit.
So, yet again in the land of the free we see capricious rules, bureaucracy, abuse of process - but hey - that's OK because this is the private sector right? Cobblers! Abuse and oppressive behaviour is still abuse and oppression when carried out in the name of property.