I would like to call attention to those frustrated homeowners with a legitimate complaint against their HOA who file every little grievance in their lawsuit. It weakens the focus of a valid complaint because the judge will quickly see that it is a general unhappiness with the board’s decisions but not violations of law or the governing documents.
Be careful! Continued court filings by the homeowner who is not getting the results that he is seeking can lead to being declared a vexatious litigant and his complaint dismissed. The following is a good example of what can happen and why. It was an Arizona complaint against a reputable HOA attorney. Please note that I have omitted the reputable HOA attorney’s named in this litigation as the party was deemed a vexatious litigant.
The litigation [marriage dissolution] has sparked over forty additional lawsuits in Arizona courts, many of which are against the attorneys. It alleged the attorney agreed to represent him in a legal malpractice lawsuit and accepted money for the representation, then never performed the work and withdrew without telling him. I’ve seen these accusations galore.
[The attorney] moved under A.R.S. § 12-3201 to declare the plaintiff a vexatious litigant. He had filed multiple responses – some 40 — opposing the motion. The trial court held that the responses,
“are unsupported by facts as alleged, argue legal positions which are not founded in the law or reasonable interpretations of the law, re-argue the same positions again and again with no regard for rulings of the Court, and promote abuse of process.”
(Now, this position by the court stated above can be found in very similar warnings against attorneys. See Rules of Civil Procedure in your state, usually R 11(a) or (b). But under a “professional courtesy” defense one attorney will not charge another attorney for fear of reciprocal complaints. You would need the court or legislator to file such a complaint with the State Bar.)
The trial court, therefore, concluded “there must be some restraint regarding new filings in Civil Court to ensure cases to be filed have a concisely plead basis in fact and law,” found Danko to be a vexatious litigant.
The plaintiff’s error was not to follow the Rules of Civil Procedure (Rule 13(a)(4)) requiring a brief that “requires an opening brief to contain a ‘statement of the case’ that must concisely state the nature of the case, and a “statement of facts’ that are relevant to the issues presented for review.”
And most importantly,
“the brief must include an “argument” section with the “contentions concerning each issue presented for review, with supporting reasons for each contention, and with citations of legal authority and appropriate references to the portions of the record” relied on.”
(Very important! In general, the requirement for filing a brief as specified above is also required when filing a lawsuit. Most are thrown out for this failure to comply. In other words, as I have argued, you need solid facts and hard evidence in order to win.)
The appellate court found the plaintiff lacking in substance and declared him a vexatious litigant.
VCL - HOA Reearch 