Friday, January 29, 2010
I've been away for awhile and am happy (and grateful) that my fellow bloggers have contributed such interesting posts over the last few months. I have really enjoyed reading the posts and learning from them.
My contribution today comes, fittingly, from Nevada. Nevada, in addition to approximately fifteen other states, has enacted a super lien law in the wake of the foreclosure crisis. Under this law, a lien imposed by a homeowner association on a house jumps ahead in priority over earlier recorded liens, including mortgages. As a result, a purchaser must pay off the HOA lien at foreclosure in order to own the title free and clear. Under the Nevada statute, HOAs are able to collect up to nine months of delinquent assessments as well as other charges through the super lien process. What is unclear, and now the subject of a lawsuit, is exactly how much HOAs can charge above delinquent assessments. Purchasers at foreclosure argue that they are routinely surprised late in the foreclosure process when HOAs (and, more often, their collection agencies) deliver shockingly high bills that include collection fees, penalties, and interest charges. HOAs argue that these fees are necessary to keep communities afloat in light of the high rate of foreclosures.
Because the Nevada legislature meets sparingly (it is next due in session during the Winter/Spring of 2011), it will likely be up to the courts to settle the statutory ambiguity. What I find interesting in this dispute is that the only entities capable of engendering more ill will than over-zealous lenders are HOAs. In their defense, HOAs are often a homeowner's last defense in this foreclosure crisis by maintaining the quality of surrounding homes. On the other hand, many see these perceived, excessive HOA charges as yet another manifestation of unchecked and intrusive power over homes and communities.
This blog is an Amazon affiliate. Help support Land Use Prof Blog by making purchases through Amazon links on this site at no cost to you.
- Stephen Miller on New Arkansas law requires local governments to pay for a "takings" where certain "regulatory programs" reduce FMV by at least 20 percent
- Josh Galperin on New Arkansas law requires local governments to pay for a "takings" where certain "regulatory programs" reduce FMV by at least 20 percent
- Jesse Richardson on New Arkansas law requires local governments to pay for a "takings" where certain "regulatory programs" reduce FMV by at least 20 percent
- Jamie Baker Roskie on Uber Goes to the State House Seeking Preemption of Local Government Control
- Stephen R. Miller on Why are building inspectors so often on the take?
- Tekle on Percent-for-Art Ordinances
- Michael Gerrard on Climate Change and Land Use Law
- Touro Law hosts First Annual Conference of the Land Use & Sustainable Development Law Institute
- Abstracts for 6th Annual Colloquium on Environmental Scholarship due May 1
- Space and the City - Special edition of The Economist