Common Interest Communities (HB516)

Introduced By

Del. Terrie Suit (R-Virginia Beach)

Progress

Introduced
Passed Committee
Passed House
Passed Senate
Signed by Governor
Became Law

Description

Common Interest Community Board. Establishes a Common Interest Communities Board, creates a Common Interest Management Information Fund and allows for a certification process for Common Interest Association managers. The bill adds several new definitions to the Property Owners' Association, Condominium, Real Estate Cooperative, and Time-Share Acts, including "common interest community manager." The bill also sets limits for the fees to be charged for preparation of the required disclosure packets and prohibits any other fees not expressly authorized in the POAA. The bill (i) provides that all declarations shall comply with the terms of the POAA, and the associations created in accordance with the POAA shall have only those powers that are expressly granted in the POAA; (ii) increases the cap on the liability of the association or its manager from $500 to $5,000 for actual damages sustained by the seller in the event of the association's failure to comply with the POAA; and (iii) provides that if settlement does not occur within 90 days of the delivery of the disclosure packet, the fee shall be assessed against the lot owner for which the disclosure packet was prepared and shall become as an assessment against the member's lot. The bill contains technical amendments, which reorganize the POAA into three articles: general provisions, disclosure requirements, and operation and management of associations. HB 1076 incorporated into this bill. Read the Bill »

Status

03/26/2008: Passed the General Assembly

History

DateAction
01/07/2008Committee
01/07/2008Prefiled and ordered printed; offered 01/09/08 087441844
01/07/2008Referred to Committee on General Laws
01/16/2008Impact statement from DPB (HB516)
01/23/2008Impact statement from DPB (HB516)
01/28/2008Assigned GL sub: Housing
02/08/2008Reported from General Laws with substitute (21-Y 0-N) (see vote tally)
02/09/2008Committee substitute printed 081870744-H1
02/09/2008Read first time
02/11/2008Read second time
02/11/2008Committee substitute agreed to 081870744-H1
02/11/2008Engrossed by House - committee substitute HB516H1
02/12/2008Read third time and passed House BLOCK VOTE (98-Y 0-N)
02/12/2008VOTE: BLOCK VOTE PASSAGE (98-Y 0-N) (see vote tally)
02/12/2008Communicated to Senate
02/13/2008Constitutional reading dispensed
02/13/2008Referred to Committee on General Laws and Technology
02/20/2008Impact statement from DPB (HB516H1)
02/27/2008Reported from General Laws and Technology with substitute (7-Y 3-N)
02/28/2008Committee substitute printed 082421744-S1
02/29/2008Passed by for the day
03/03/2008Constitutional reading dispensed (40-Y 0-N)
03/04/2008Read third time
03/04/2008Reading of substitute waived
03/04/2008Committee substitute agreed to 082421744-S1
03/04/2008Engrossed by Senate - committee substitute HB516S1
03/04/2008Passed Senate with substitute (30-Y 9-N)
03/05/2008Placed on Calendar
03/05/2008Senate substitute agreed to by House 082421744-S1 (97-Y 0-N)
03/05/2008VOTE: --- ADOPTION (97-Y 0-N)
03/24/2008Enrolled
03/24/2008Bill text as passed House and Senate (HB516ER)
03/24/2008Signed by Speaker
03/26/2008Signed by President
04/01/2008Impact statement from DPB (HB516ER)
04/11/2008Governor's recommendation received by House

Comments

Koger Victim in NOVA writes:

I was the victim of a CAI (Community Association Institute) affiliated management company in Fairfax County. Do a google search on "Koger Management" and you can read about the theft of millions of dollars.

Notice that I didn't say that my ASSOCIATION was the victim. As a homeowner, I pay the association's bills.

Ms. Suit's bill would appoints the fox, in the form of CAI affiliated HOA managers and lawyers, (they're all in the same trade association), to manage the henhouse.

Why?

Well, Ms. Suit's political contributions include $7,000 from the Va Association of Community Managers (a CAI affiliated trade association WITHIN a trade association), $5,000 fro the Great Eastern property management company, $1,500 from the Princess Ann property management company, and $1,250 from Pia Trigiani, a CAI affiliated lawyer from Northern Virginia and a member of CAI's Legislative Action Committee. Those are just the ones I spotted quickly.

I wonder whether Ms. Suit has any actual homeowners in her district?

You see, under her proposal not a SINGLE member of her 9 member "Common Interest Community Board" would even be required to actually LIVE in a "Common Interest Community."

This bill is CAI's attempt at "damage control" after the Koger debacle. They've resisted any type of government oversight of HOAs for years. Now, with homeowners waving pitchforks, they're ready to accept oversight -- as long as THEY'RE IN CHARGE OF IT.

We NEED government oversight. But we need oversight of HOAs themselves -- not just management companies. HOAs have been given much too much power.

Our oversight must protect Homeowners from BOTH associations AND management companies.

This is the biggest consumer protection issue that the Commonwealth has faced in years, and it needs to be addressed from that perspective. We wouldn't put an association of funeral directors in charge of protecting the rights of the bereaved, and we can't afford to have CAI. (or a paid CAI political hack) in charge of designing the solution to this problem.

A Koger Victim in Northern Virginia

Pretty Upset writes:

I agree that this is a bad bill, mostly because it entrusts the HOA industry with oversight. Unfortuanately, the industry can't be trusted with this. It's not just the management companies. A google search on "CAI lawyers" will be a real eye opener for those of you who don't live in an HOA.

But suppose we took the good parts of this bill and combined them with Del Marshall's HB206. This would put oversight of HOA's under a reorganized and empowered Division of Consumer Protection. It would seem that this would best provide consumer protection for homeowners in HOAs, and would keep the "industry" from trying to control the oversight process.

I got burned by Koger, too, so I'm:

Pretty Upset

Shu Bartholomew writes:

I agree with both of you. This bill would take a really bad situation and make it just that much worse by asking the industry to police itself. Not only have members of the industry not been able to do that, they tend to get very defensive when a position they have taken or a member of theirs is criticized for wrong doing. Giving them these additional powers is plain ridiculous.

I think this bill deserves to die. Furthermore I believe that Delegate Suit should resign from the VA Housing Commission. As someone who works in the real estate industry, it is clearly a conflict of interest for her to serve on this committee.

I am continually amazed at just how the very people elected to serve and protect the citizens can propose legislation this bad.

By the way, isn't it about time that the people who have to live in HOAs have a say in all these proposed bills?

I remain disgusted, fed up and frustrated.

Shu Bartholomew

Notsofast writes:

The changes this bill would make to the Property Owners Association Act are far too sweeping, and far too ambiguous, to be approved in a 60 day legislative session. In the immortal words of Ricky Ricardo, Ms. Suit has some "splaining" to do.

This bill does, in fact, appear to have been drafted BY the HOA management industry FOR the HOA management industry.

Millions of Virginians live in HOAs and "HOA Horror Stories" have become commonplace. We are long past the time when the legislature can accept the claim of the HOA industry that these stories are "isolated incidents." Moreover, even a cursory search on the internet indicates that law firms and management companies associated with the Community Association Institute appear to be on the wrong side of a disproportionately high percentage of HOAs with "horror stories." CAI does not appear to have, much less to be, the "solution" to the HOA problem.

There must be a governmental agency available to homeowners aggrieved by their HOAs. That agency must be empowered to provide genuine redress and to penalize managers and directors who exceed their authority under the POAA or their governing documents.

When complaints are made against HOAs or management companies, they should be logged into a searchable database and tracked from the date of filing through resolution. Associations, management companies, and board members found to have violated the law should have that information available on the internet for 5 years so that others electing boards or selecting management companies will have access to this information.

And the agency empowered to provide this protection to the homeowners and consumers of Virginia must NOT be under the control of the CAI "HOA mangement industry."

Shu Bartholomew writes:

Notsofast is absolutely correct. Most thinking people would no more consider asking Mrs. O'Leary's cow to investigate the Chicago Fire than they would fly to the moon. The question has to be asked then, why would we resort to that sort of "remedy" when it comes to protecting Virginia homeowners? This is clearly NOT a real solution but yet another "feel good" fix dreamed up by the industry and carried by a legislator who appears to have benefited by large industry campaign contributions.

If anyone is really interested in protecting the homeowners in associations I would suggest looking into a pilot program being used in the Miami Dade area of Florida. Florida State Representative Julio Robaina designed and pushed for a program that trains REAL law enforcement officers to investigate allegations of embezzlement and wrong doing by board members and management companies. So far millions of homeowner assessment dollars have been recovered with investigations ongoing and more horrific stories ready to grab the headlines.

Whether this is the best way of providing real protections for homeowners remains to be seen but it certainly is more serious about getting the job done than the pathetic bill proposed by Del. Suit.

There is no "fixing" HB 516. This bill needs to be KILLED. I would like to see a legislator with NO ties to any industry member establish a committee made up of ALL interested parties, INCLUDING HOMEOWNERS to study the issues and propose real solutions.

Terry Bartholomew writes:

Del. Spruill wants to castrate pickup trucks (HB 1452) and Del. Suit is after every homeowner in Virginia who lives in a Homeowner Association. If the thinking of our legislators wasn't so terrifying, it might be funny.

Phil Filechurner, Esq writes:

It's about time Virginia decided to put CAI in charge of HOAs. Don't worry. We'll protect the homeowners. After all, they're the geese that lay our golden eggs!

My pal Tom Skiba at CAI National wrote:

"What we cannot support are situations that compromise the financial health and well-being of associations, place an undue regulatory burden and cost on associations, or treat associations differently than any other type of business entity. Because that is what associations are - businesses. "

Now, Tom was only partly right. Here's what I told him:

Tom, we in CAI not only WANT associations treated "differently" than any other type of business entity -- we've INSISTED on different treatment for associations, so long as the difference was preferential to the association.

The recourse for 99.9% of American businesses, when they perceive that they have been deprived of something to which they"re entitled by contract, is to invoke the assistance of the courts: to sue. And of course, they litigate in a neutral forum before an unbiased judge with full due process rights to both parties. But associations don't get THIS treatment, Tom. You know that, and even these ditzy unit owners have figured it out.

What other "business" can unilaterally decide that you're in breach of a contractual relationship, haul you before a kangaroo court with no due process, impose a "fine" and sell your home by auction on the courthouse steps to collect the "fine" -- all without ever involving a court of competent jurisdiction? Only HOA's get to do this!

We get to do it because lawyers like me, and my pals F. Lee Foreclosure, Velvet Jones, Esq., and other CAI lawyers, lobbyists, and hacks have worked for years to convince the legislatures that the sky would fall and the Republic would collapse unless associations had these powers.

Keep up the good work, Tom, but let's not only candidly admit what CAI stands for -- let's be proud of what we've done.

I'm voting "YES" for HB516!

As always, have a profitable day!

Phil Filechurner, Esq.
Filechurner & Foreclosure LLC
"We make money the CAI way: through the equity in your home."

HB516 = SB301 writes:

Careful folks.

Sen Mary Margaret Whipple introduced SB301, and it's a carbon copy of HB516.

We need to stop SB301 in the senate.

CAI Munchkin Chorus writes:

We're warming up and rehearsing for a Big CAI win on this bill!

Be ready to sing along! Lyrics follow:

The Bill of Rights is Dead

(By the CAI Munchkin Chorus)

Hi, ho we won the fight!
We're in charge of oversight!
Ding, dong, the Bill of Rights is dead!

Sunshine laws no longer shine!
We’ll meet in secret all the time!
Ding, dong the Bill of Rights is dead!

We’ll do just as we please!
Foreclosures, fines and “transfer fees!”
They’re on their knees! The Bill of Rights is dead!

It’s gone where the sun don’t shine and NOW we’re free to fine, so

Kiss all your rights goodbye!
And never challenge CAI!
Don’t even try: the Bill of Rights is dead!

opposed writes:

I agree that the legislature needs to protect homeowners in hoa's from both association Boards and from management companies.

This bill does not provide that protection. This bill gives too much power to management companies on matters that have nothing to do with the bill's stated purpose of regulating management companies.

The legislature should not pass this bill, and if it passes,the governor should veto it.

I read the Bill writes:

The bill's stated purpose is to "protect the interests of associations adversely affected by common interest community managers who have breached their fiduciary duty."

So why does this "oversight panel" need powers that have nothing to do with keeping Managers in line? Why does it have authorities over Boards of Directors of HOA's?

Why?

I read it too writes:

§ 54.1-2351. General powers and duties of Board concerning associations.

This section of the bill has nothing to do with oversight of licensed HOA Managers. It gives the committee to be created by this bill all kinds of power over HOa's themselves.

A very bad idea....

Who's On the Board? writes:

This bill creates a 9 member "Common Interest Community Board."

The composition of the Board is all wrong. of the 9, at least 6 are required to be appointed from the ranks of those who sell services to Homeowners Associations (management companies, law firms, accountants, etc).

NOT A SINGLE ONE of the 9 is actually REQUIRED TO LIVE IN AN ASSOCIATION! See 54.1-2348 of the bill.

The bill should require that at least 6 of the 9 members be residents of HOA's, and that these 6 DO NOT SELL SERVICES TO HOAs.

We do not need foxes guarding henhouses in Virginia.

p.s. The news in Fairfax is that Jeff Koger, (Yeah, THAT Jeff Koger), was shot last night in a gunfight with police. Well, at least they'll know where he is when they get around to charging him for his exploits with homeowners money.

Surprise, surprise writes:

Thanks for the information. I guess what you are saying is that under this bill some gun slinger who gets into gunfights with cops and who is under investigation for having embezzled over $2 million could be on this board protecting the rights of HOAs?

Isn't it great that our legislators are serious about protecting the homeowners.

Perry White writes:

This was posted today on the hoanewsnetwork website in response to a story about how "tough" Virginia is getting with HOAs:

It never ceases to amaze me how lazy some reporters are. The bills referred to are SB301 and HB516. Since the reporter did not even identify the bills, draw your own conclusion about whether the reporter read 'em.

We're told that "State Sen. Mary Margaret Whipple (D-Arlington), who introduced the measure on behalf of the Virginia Housing Commission, said the lawmakers were very concerned with what happened in the Koger incident."

Is that a fact?

Did you happen to ask Sen Whipple to identify the members of the Common Interest Communities Working Group of the Virginia Housing Commission?

I mean, if this was intended to be a "consumer protection" type bill, you'd think there would be some consumer advocates, eh?

And if the bill was designed to correct problems in HOAs, you'd think that a majority of the drafters would actually live in HOAs, right?

I can only conclude that you did not ask.

The internet is a wonderful thing. Do they teach about using it at Journalism School? Go to http://dls.state.va.us/houscomm.htm. You'll find that the Working Group has 10 members. 3 are legislators. These are Sen. Whipple, Del. John Cosgrove, and Del Terrie Suit. You can check the contributions to these legislators at VPAP.com. You can read comments about some of the contributions to Ms. Suit at richmondsunlight.com. There are even lots of comments about SB301 and HB516 at richmondsunlight.com that might have been useful to your "story."

Of the seven remaining members, we have Francis T. Eck, a registered lobbyist for the Virginia Resort Development Assn, Dale Goodman, who runs a property management company and is a player in the "timeshare" industry, Ron Kirby, who runs CMC property management company and is President of the CAI-affiliated Virginia Association of Community Managers, Mike Toalson, President of the Home Builders Assn of Virginia, and Pia Trigiani, a CAI affiliated lawyer and paid CAI lobbyist.

Only two of the seven don't have resumes that scream "I am in the pocket of the "industry." These are Jay DeBoer, Director of the Department of Professional and Occupational Regulation, and Cynthia Schrier, the "Community Association Liaison" from the Real Estate Board who is basically powerless to actually rein in abusive HOAs.

How many of the drafters actually live in an HOA?

Wouldn't it have been nice if the reporter had asked?

Consumer

Jimmy Olsen writes:

Here's another one from hoanewsnetwork. Some of the characters mentioned in this one (Eck, Kirby, and Toalson), were mentioned in the post directly above:

Delegate Cosgrove

Delegate Cosgrove is mentioned above as a member of the Commmon Interest Communities Working Group, too. This is the group that drafted HB516 and SB301.

Acording to VPAP.COM:

Cosgrove accepted $2500 from the Virginia Resort Development Assn (Headed by Mr. Eck, also a member of his Working Group).

He accepted $2250 from the Home Builders Assn of Virginia, (Headed by Mr. Toalson, who is also a member of his Working Group)

He accepted $500 from the Virginia Association of Property Managers, (a CAI-affiliated group headed by Mr. Kirby, who is also on his Working Group),

And he accepted $1000 from Waldo Property, a property management company.

Those are just the ones that leap off the page, but is it any wonder that the Working Group drafts a bill that serves Eck, Toalson and Kirby very well, but hoses the homeowners of Virginia?

Indeed, the best legislature money can buy.

Shag writes:

I've been very proud of the discussion on this bill. A lot of folks have been doing their homework.

A few minutes ago, HB516 was the second most discussed bill on richmondsunlight.

Then I saw that the only bill discussed MORE was about approving special license plates for Shag-dancing clubs.

Do they have HOAs in New Zealand?

poster writes:

OF CAI and "Wolves"

In Virginia, the Community Association Institute has a "legislative action committee," or "lac."

Lawyers on this committee probably drafted SB301 and HB516.

They never told homeowners what they were up to, but that's par for the course with CAI.

If you do a google search on the terms "valac" and "lac pack" you'll find the page that the Virginia CAI LAC uses to recruit new members.

You'll read their boast that VLAC is like "a pack of wolves." You'll read their warning to vendors who aren't members of their LAC that "A lone wolf is often a hungry wolf." These are their own words!

Hmmmm....what do these "wolves" eat?

What are they "hungry" for?

Their only source of "nourishment" is
MONEY -- and their only source of MONEY is YOU, the HOMEOWNER.

You'll pay your money in the form of "dues" to your HOA, (which in turn pays the CAI vendors). You'll also pay any "fines," imposed by the HOA's own Kangaroo Court, (Code of Virginia 55-513.B.ii), or "special assessments" or "charges" that the CAI LAC can convince the legislature to let them get away with.

Under Virginia law (Code of Virginia 55-516.I), The equity in your home will be forfeited if you don't pay. And you will LOSE your home by nonjudicial foreclosure -- without any court proceedings whatsoever -- because that's the way CAI thinks that HOAs should be able to handle "debt collection."

That's why they band together as a "pack" -- in order to more efficiently separate you from your money.

They've pretty much had their way with the Virginia Legislature for a long time.

And NOW they want the legislature to appoint members of their "wolfpack" to guard the "sheep."

The "sheep" would be YOU, Mr and Mrs Homeowner!

Maybe -- just maybe -- now is the time to take the first small steps toward making Virgina homeowners "wolf proof."

The legislature should vote NO on SB301.

Condo Owner writes:

You people are nuts. Have you read the bill? It reigns in the association managers. It finally gives us a way to fight our boards when they won't abide by the law. I think this is a very good law. You are a bunch of conspiracy theorists.

Singing in the "reign" writes:

So it "reigns in" association managers, eh?

I have read the bill and I think not.

It was DRAFTED by CAI, an association management trade association that -- for YEARS -- has been spewing the line that we don't NEED government oversight of HOAs.

Look at who will be DOING the "oversight." The managers.

Their "reign" will continue until the legislature stops genuflecting to CAI's lobbyists and empowers an entity they DON'T CONTROL to blister their asses when they tread on homeowners rights.

Sadder but Wiser writes:

This bill is bad for homeowners. The information above should lead the legislature to kill it or the Governor to veto it, although I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for that to happen.

To me, though, the real value of the preceeding posts (and of this website) is the "sunlight" that has been shed on the process by which our laws are made.

I am troubled by the extent to which special interests like CAI have been able to make our elected representatives dance to their tune. I have no confidence that, if this bill becomes law, the people appointed to the "oversight" positions will provide consumer protection to homeowners.

Update writes:

The text of the bill posted here does not reflect the "roll - in" of the HB1076 language.

The language makes the bill WORSE by letting management companies bill sellers DIRECTLY for fees associated with "disclosure packets."

Management should get paid by the HOA. Management companies are under contract with the HOA, and should get PAID by the HOA. Management companies should NEVER be able to bill individual owners.

A bad bill made even worse!

Dear Senators writes:

The Senate version of this bill was SB301, and it barely passed by 20 -18.

This is the House version, and it only makes a bad bill WORSE, by including what was formerly HB1076.

This will enable management companies to use the equity in our homes as security for payments to THEM. These companies have no privity of contract with homeowners, but have lusted for the chance to DIRECTLY BILL the owners for services ALREADY PAID FOR in the contract between the HOA and the management company.

If we are very lucky, the Senate will finally say "enough is enough" and kill this bill.

Dear Madam Chairman writes:

Senate vote to pass SB301 was actually 21 to 18.

This should go to the Senate Committee on General Laws & Technology on Wednesday. But SB301 passed in that Committee by 10 to 5.

The Senate needs to know that this bill is worse than SB301.

HOA Dweller writes:

If you live in a condo or homeowners association this bill will hurt you AND cost you money.

This is a bill that benefits only one group: the CAI affiliated management companies.

They will gain money, power, and control. The homeowners will get screwed....as usual...

Site Needs to Update Test writes:

The text posted on this site is not complete or accurate.

The correct and current language for this bill is on the official legislative website.

The comments here, though, are right on the money. This bill is very bad news for folks who own homes in condos or HOA's.

Geri Johnson writes:

I had hoped this bill might have assisted me in dealing with an unsophisticated, apathetic (if not pathetic) condo Board that is being lead by an unresponsive, complacent, and un-checked management agent; however, looks like that's not going to happen. If anyone out there knows any No. Va. or D.C. lawyers who are consumer-oriented and willing to advocate for the homeowner in a condo-association / mgmt. agent dispute, please let me know at jhngeri@aol.com.

Waldo Jaquith writes:

The text posted on this site is not complete or accurate.

The text on this site is word-for-word identical to the text on the General Assembly's website. Compare this to this and you'll see.

What text? writes:

Nobody can find the "current" text of HB516. It's not on this site, and it's not on the official website of the legislature. What's shown here (and there) is no longer current.

That's because Delegate Terrie Suit submitted a BRAND NEW version at the February 20 hearing before the Senate Committee on General Laws & Technology.

For the record, she had done EXACTLY THE SAME THING the preceeding week before the House Committee on General Laws. The House Committee let her get away with it and approved a bill they obviously hadn't read. (Hey, we're all pals here, right?)

Ms. Suit wasn't so lucky in the Senate. Senator Chap Petersen of Fairfax County complained that he'd just been handed a complete re-write of a 90 page bill that had drawn some serious opposition from his constituents, and that he expected time to read such a bill before voting on it.

He moved to table consideration of the bill for one week and his motion was approved without objection.

It's going to be tougher for CAI to get away with the "smoke and mirrors" tactics that they've used so often in the past.

Waldo Jaquith writes:

Ah, well, there's nothing we can do at Richmond Sunlight about that, then. Interesting!

HB516 hits the press writes:

Reporter Nick Horrock published a story on HB516 in the Connection Newspapers in Northern Virginia. It's the most accurate story so far, and it actually identifies the Bill. It's pretty objective and mostly accurate. Mr. Horrock stated (incorrectly) that of the 3 "citizen members of the Common Interest Community Board, two would be required to live in Common Interest Communities. That's not true. The bill provides that:

“three shall be Virginia citizens, one of whom serves or who has served on the governing board of an association and two of whom reside or have resided in a common interest community.”

In other words, if HB516 passes, not a single one of the 9 members of this Board will be required to actually reside in a Common Interest Community.

Mr. Horrock also identifies the Community association Institute (CAI) as an association of HOA's. CAI is a trade association generally comprised of, and overwhemingly controlled by, those who SELL SERVICES to HOAs: management companies, law firms, landscaping companies, etc.

Other than that, it's a very good report. Mr. Horrock obviously read the comments posted here and consulted VPAP regarding the contributions to Delegate Suit from CAI affiliated management companies. This type of exposure is long overdue.

Latest Text of 516 Still Bad writes:

The latest version adds 2 members to the Common Interest Community Board: Both representing Developers. The Board is now 11 members, and not a single one is required to actually LIVE in a Common Interest Community.

This bill is a complete sell-out of the homeowners in favor of the special interest groups. Disgraceful.

Memo for Phil Filechurner, Esq writes:

Well, Phil, the bill passed 7 - 3 in the Senate Committee, but those numbskulls AMENDED it to put two RESIDENTS of HOAs on the Common Interest Community Board! What good is CAI's lobbying money if these Senators can't follow simple instructions? Now we have to get the Governor to appoint two certifiable dimwits who LIVE in one of these HOAs, but who'll follow OUR instructions. Otherwise, we might wind up with some smartass who sees his role as providing "consumer protection" for homeowners.

The GOOD news is that all the rest of our stuff passed: Homeowners will pay a "CAI tax" of hundreds of dollars every time a home in an HOA is bought or sold, including a "post closing fee" of $50.00. All of this money can be collected by nonjudicial foreclosure on the house, of course, and only owners in HOAs with CAI management companies will pay this new "tax."

We also kept the authority of our CAI dominated Common Interest Community Board over all kinds of stuff unrelated to regulating managers. It'll be the best CAI money maker since we got Kangaroo Courts approved in 55-513 of the Code of Virginia!

Congratulations on another big CAI win, Phil.

Your partner,

F. Lee Foreclosure, Esq.
Filechurner & Foreclosure, LLP
"We make money the CAI way: through the equity in your home."