TABLE 9: IMPOSE NOTIFICATION SAFEGUARDS BEFORE CREATING OR
FORECLOSING A LIEN ON A HOA RESIDENCE |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
KEY
FINDINGS: |
1 |
Overall 95.6% of respondents want
safeguards against instituting or foreclosing a lien on a HOA residence
without ample notice. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 |
Boldfaced values in the rows of column
YESes and Noes differ significantly from the overall average as they are at
least 3 standard deviations away from that value. The disparities are notable within |
|
|
all respondent traits. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3 |
The
percentage YES and NO responses of the all Non-owner Interest groups are
statistically significantly different from the corresponding ones of Owners
and Overall figures. This is one of
two |
|
|
instances where one of the 14
issues garnered a negative response; 58.3% of C.A.M.s were opposed and,
correspondingly, only 41.7% were in favor.
However, given the few C.A.M.s |
|
|
participating, readers must take
care not to overstate the importance of this result. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4 |
Some
percentage YES and NO responses in the Gender, CCFJ Membership, Region and
Additional Remarks Made sections differ significantly from the Overall
figures as well as those for Owners. |
|
5 |
The
YES and NO percentage responses of CCFJ members differ significantly from one
another as well as from those Overall. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6 |
Only
respondents in the Interest section show a causal relationship with their YES
or NO votes on this issue. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* * * * * * * * *
* * * |
* * * * * * *
* INTEREST * * * * * * * *
* * * |
* * * * * * * * * |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* * * * * * *
REGION [8] * * * * * * * * |
* *
ADDITIONAL REMARKS MADE * * |
|
|
|
|
|
BOARD |
|
|
|
|
|
* * * GENDER [5] * * * |
|
CCFJ
MEMBER [7] |
|
|
WEST |
EAST |
|
|
PRIORITY |
COMMENT |
|
|
|
|
OVERALL |
OWNER |
MEMBER [1] |
LAWYER |
C.A.M. [2] |
OTHER [3] |
N.A. [4] |
|
MALE |
FEMALE |
D.K. [6] |
|
YES |
NO |
|
NORTH |
CENTRAL |
COAST |
COAST |
SOUTH |
|
ONLY |
ONLY |
BOTH |
NEITHER |
OVERALL TOTALS |
|
1033 |
|
740 |
130 |
7 |
13 |
8 |
135 |
|
584 |
389 |
60 |
|
196 |
837 |
|
35 |
202 |
156 |
137 |
503 |
|
176 |
131 |
418 |
308 |
% WITHIN CATEGORY |
|
100.0% |
|
71.6% |
12.6% |
0.7% |
1.3% |
0.8% |
13.1% |
|
56.5% |
37.7% |
5.8% |
|
19.0% |
81.0% |
|
3.4% |
19.6% |
15.1% |
13.3% |
48.7% |
|
17.0% |
12.7% |
40.5% |
29.8% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ADJUSTED # [9] |
|
1026 |
|
737 |
130 |
7 |
12 |
8 |
132 |
|
584 |
387 |
55 |
|
196 |
830 |
|
34 |
202 |
155 |
134 |
501 |
|
175 |
131 |
416 |
304 |
# OF YESes |
|
981 |
|
718 |
117 |
6 |
5 |
7 |
128 |
|
555 |
375 |
51 |
|
193 |
788 |
|
32 |
194 |
152 |
131 |
472 |
|
171 |
124 |
399 |
287 |
# OF NOs |
|
45 |
|
19 |
13 |
1 |
7 |
1 |
4 |
|
29 |
12 |
4 |
|
3 |
42 |
|
2 |
8 |
3 |
3 |
29 |
|
4 |
7 |
17 |
17 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
COLUMN % YES [10] |
|
95.6% |
|
97.4% |
90.0% |
85.7% |
41.7% |
87.5% |
97.0% |
|
95.0% |
96.9% |
92.7% |
|
98.5% |
94.9% |
|
94.1% |
96.0% |
98.1% |
97.8% |
94.2% |
|
97.7% |
94.7% |
95.9% |
94.4% |
t-Test on %
YESes [11] |
|
|
2.8 |
-8.8 |
-15.5 |
-84.3 |
-12.7 |
2.1 |
|
-0.9 |
2.0 |
-4.5 |
|
4.5 |
-1.1 |
|
-2.3 |
0.7 |
3.8 |
3.4 |
-2.2 |
|
3.3 |
-1.5 |
0.5 |
-1.9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
COLUMN % NO [10] |
|
4.4% |
|
2.6% |
10.0% |
14.3% |
58.3% |
12.5% |
3.0% |
|
5.0% |
3.1% |
7.3% |
|
1.5% |
5.1% |
|
5.9% |
4.0% |
1.9% |
2.2% |
5.8% |
|
2.3% |
5.3% |
4.1% |
5.6% |
t-Test on % NOes [11] |
|
|
|
-2.8 |
8.8 |
15.5 |
84.3 |
12.7 |
-2.1 |
|
0.9 |
-2.0 |
4.5 |
|
-4.5 |
1.1 |
|
2.3 |
-0.7 |
-3.8 |
-3.4 |
2.2 |
|
-3.3 |
1.5 |
-0.5 |
1.9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 STD.
DEVIATION [12] |
0.6% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
% YESes Row [10] |
|
100.0% |
|
73.2% |
11.9% |
0.6% |
0.5% |
0.7% |
13.0% |
|
56.6% |
38.2% |
5.2% |
|
19.7% |
80.3% |
|
3.3% |
19.8% |
15.5% |
13.4% |
48.1% |
|
17.4% |
12.6% |
40.7% |
29.3% |
% NOs Row [10] |
|
100.0% |
|
42.2% |
28.9% |
2.2% |
15.6% |
2.2% |
8.9% |
|
64.4% |
26.7% |
8.9% |
|
6.7% |
93.3% |
|
4.4% |
17.8% |
6.7% |
6.7% |
64.4% |
|
8.9% |
15.6% |
37.8% |
37.8% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Calculated
Chi-Squared Value [13]: |
0.2807X10^-6
[14] |
|
|
|
|
|
0.2138 |
|
|
|
0.0300 |
|
|
0.0216 |
|
|
|
|
|
0.3517 |
|
|
|
Implication of
Chi-Squared Test |
|
RELATIONSHIP FOUND |
|
|
|
|
|
INDEPENDENT |
|
|
INDEPENDENT |
|
INDEPENDENT |
|
|
|
|
INDEPENDENT |
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 ROWS X 3 COLUMNS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 ROWS X 3 COLUMNS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
© 2008 Cyber Citizens for Justice, Inc. Deland, FL |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|