Articles Posted in Davis-Stirling Act

It comes up all the time. A resident wants to attend and participate at a board meeting or wants to serve on the board of directors. That resident may be a tenant or the significant other of an actual owner of that property, or perhaps the beneficiary of a trust or shareholder of a corporation that owns the property. Often, governing documents state that only an “owner of record” can serve on the board, and the Open Meeting Act states that “any member of the association may attend a meeting of the board of directors of the association.” Electing a non-owner to the board of directors, when the governing documents require ownership as a qualification, could jeopardize the legality of the board’s decisions, and perhaps even insurance coverage.

Black’s Law Dictionary defines an “owner” of real property as a person who is vested with title to property and has a right to enjoy that property and do with it as he or she pleases. The “Record Owner” is usually defined in the CC&Rs as the “owner of the Title” at the time of notice. But does this mean that the association is required to go out and check Title? Not necessarily. Typically, the owner of record at a community association is the owner on the association’s records based on the information that was provided, perhaps through escrow, when the unit was sold. Some management company agreements obligate the manager to a higher level of record keeping by requiring that the manager keep not only a list of the homeowners, but rather a “current list.” This rather innocuous phrase could actually place an ongoing obligation on the manager to verify correct ownership. If that’s your intention, great; if not, contracts should be rephrased. The association is entitled to rely on its records, unless it is provided proof by way of a recorded deed, that ownership (in whole or in part) has been transferred to someone new. A resident may present the association with a copy of a quit claim deed, showing that he or she may own all or a portion of the property, but that deed may not have been recorded. Then that person would not necessarily be the “owner of record,” at least not recognized by the County Recorder’s Office as the owner, and thus should not be considered by the association to be an owner.

Record Owner

To foreclose or not foreclose, that seems to be the question that many association board members and managers are asking themselves these days. There is no question that the sub-prime meltdown/crisis has increased the number of delinquent homeowners. Data Quick Information Services reports that in the first three months of 2008, 47,171 homes were lost to foreclosure, more than four times as many as a year earlier. In that same period, 110,000 California homeowners received default notices which is a 143% increase from the same period in 2007. Data Quick estimates that only 32% of the properties in default will avoid foreclosure, which is down from 52% a year ago. It is therefore no surprise that Association Lien Services has seen a steep rise in the number of delinquent matters that are being turned over for collection. With the potential lack of equity and the fact that these delinquent homeowners may not have any assets to collect on, making the decision as to how to proceed to collect and whether or not to foreclose are questions that many associations are having to face. Attorney David Swedelson has written an article that will help board members and managers answer these questions. Download a PDF copy of the article To Foreclose or Not Foreclose.

Although the FCC regulations which allow a owner to install a satelite dish on their property has been the law for several years now, it is still widely misunderstood. The attached PDF story from the Ventura County Star shows just how misunderstood this law is. A owner at a condo association cannot, without the associations approval, place a satellite dish on the common area and that is exactly where this disgruntled owner placed his. What do you think?Download ventura_county_star__ventura_010505.pdf

BILL BANNING FORECLOSURES ON SMALL DEBTS ADVANCES

By JIM WASSERMAN Associated Press

SACRAMENTO – A bill proposing to ban home foreclosures as a tool to collect small debts in private communities easily cleared a key Senate hurdle Tuesday, beginning a journey that could eventually collide with the veto pen of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

This may be the Easter season, but it’s hardly the best of times for bunny rabbits at one south Orange County homeowners association.

The Mission Viejo City Council has given permission for one gated community to have rabbits shot on sight.

Many residents in the Casta del Sol HOA retirement community, frustrated for years by the abundance of rabbits gnawing on native shrubs and plants and doing their bunny business on their lawns, want to thin the ranks. They want an exterminator with a pellet gun to take aim at the unwanted wildlife in the wee hours of the morning.

California Senator Denise Moreno Ducheny (who represents parts of San Diego and Riverside Counties and all of Imperial County) recently unveiled a proposal, similar to one she offered last year, the veru same one that was vetoed by the Governor as being overly broad, claiming that it is “aimed at protecting homeowners in common interest developments from unfair foreclosures by their homeowners association”. Unfortunately, what she has proposed is almost identical to her prior bill. While Senator Ducheny may believe that the bill protects homeowners, it actually will hurt the very owners the bill seeks to protect. What she apparently does not recognize is the fact that the vast majority of homeowners in community associations timely pay their assessments and they will end up having to pay the deficit created by those owners that do not pay timely their assessments and will be protected by her proposed legislation.

SB 137 seeks to prohibit a homeowners association from using judicial or non-judicial foreclosure for the collection of delinquent assessments of less than $2,500. It provides that homeowners‚ associations may collect such debts only through a judgment in small claims courts or by placing a lien without foreclosing on the property until the amount owed is $2,500. What SB 137 will really do is delay associations from being able to collect delinquent assessments. The reason that community associations were given the ability to lien and foreclose on the property of those that do not timely pay their assessments is the historical recognition by the legislature and the courts that community associations have no other source of income. How are associations supposed to pay for insurance, utilities, and other costs if they are delayed in collection by going through the small claims court and then trying to collect on the judgment (assuming that they get such an award)?

Senator Ducheny claims that her proposed legislation responds to complaints from homeowners who have had their homes foreclosed upon for a small amount of delinquent dues. What complaints? Unfortunately, she has not provided anyone with that information, the number of complaints, or if she has even investigated to see if the complaints are justified. She relies on one case that involved the Radcliffs of Copperopolis who lost their home when their community association foreclosed the lein placed on their home when they failed to pay over $120 in assessments and fees. What she fails to mention is the extraordinary efforts the association went through in an effort to collect the assessments before they actually foreclosed.

Prepared by Sandra L. Gottlieb, Esq.

SwedelsonGottlieb

In the mid-90’s, The Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) established rules known as the Over the Air Reception Devices, known by the acronym OTARD, which preempts provisions in many governing documents that require an owner to obtain approval before installing a satellite dish. The public policy part of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (the “Act”) was the vehicle by which the FCC guaranteed that homeowners had reasonable access to new communication technology available to American consumers and provided that such access takes priority over private restrictions based on aesthetics. That said, however, the Act did not require associations to allow access to association common areas, but rather left the decisions concerning associations’ common areas, subject to statutory and governing document requirements, to the boards of directors of those associations. The common area at a condominium association is likely any area outside of the airspace of an owner’s unit or their exclusive use patio or balcony.

I noticed this article in a local paper. Casa Gateway had been a client several years ago. Does not appear that they are working with an attorney. Not often that such a dispute ends up in the newspaper. David Swedelson

Casa Gateway Residents Organize to Halt Sale of Valuable Easement

February 09, 2006

Contact Information