|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aug. 6
|
|
|
|
|
40
|
|
JOURNAL OF PROCEEDINGS
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The President put the question: Shall the Bill pass,
notwithstanding the objections of the Executive
The roll call vote resulted as follows:
Affirmative: 0 Negative: 45
(See Roll Call No. 20)
The President announced the veto was sustained.
June 1, 1982
The Honorable James Clark, Jr.
President of the Senate
State House
Annapolis, Maryland 21404
Dear Mr. President:
In accordance with Article II, Section 17 of the
Maryland Constitution, I have today vetoed Senate Bill 473.
The bill enacts a statutory method for a homeowners'
association to obtain a lien to secure charges imposed on
the members of the association by the bylaws or declaration
of covenants of the homeowners' association and, in
addition, certain other charges and expenses connected with
the collection of those charges. The lien would extend to
the member's house, the land upon which the house is
located, and to the rights or property associated with the
ownership of the house. The recording in the land records
of a statement of a homeowner's association lien by the
association, without notice to the homeowner, would be
sufficient to make the lien effective. The lien would be
enforceable, and could be foreclosed, by the association.
Foreclosure proceedings would be conducted in the same
manner as foreclosures of mortgages or deeds of trust.
The bill would raise difficult interpretive issues, and
the statutory procedure is quite possibly unconstitutional.
Regrettably, the bill does not circumscribe the types of
"associations" which would be entitled to use the lien
procedures provided in the bill. For example, the bill
would authorize all community associations, by the action of
a small number of members, to impose charges on its members
and secure them with liens, even though the association was
not formed for the purpose of providing, nor actually
provides, services of a substantial nature to the members of
the homeowners' association or to the properties within the
community.
Because the bill provides that the lien may be imposed
without notice or a prior hearing, its constitutionality is
suspect. As the Attorney General points out in the attached
letter, the statutory scheme would constitute a taking of
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
