HOA Law Blog
By the Community Association Attorneys at SwedelsonGottlieb 
Through SB 261, the California Legislature fixed some issues with prior legislation dealing with delivery of notices and related matters and generally fixed some issues that had come up after prior legislation was adopted. This bill became effective in January 1st and amends the following existing sections of the Civil Code as stated:
• Email Consent to Document Delivery — Civil Code §4040 (Individual Notice), which allows for individual delivery of notices and other documents by email if an owner consents to this in writing was amended to allow an individual owner to permit/revoke consent to allow individual notice by email. While most attorneys thought that an email was considered a writing, this amendment eliminates any confusion.
A senate bill seeking to prohibit California community associations from establishing qualifications for candidates to run for their boards of directors among other changes and requirements (including possible invasion of owner privacy) is a dumb idea that would create bad law.
Effective January 1, 2018, Civil Code Section 4515 was added to the Davis-Stirling Act to protect certain rights of political speech and peaceful assembly within the boundaries of a common interest development.
As you may have heard, the Governor signed into law new legislation that now changes a California condominium’s associations ability to prohibit an owner from installing a solar energy system on the common area roof. AB 634, which went into effect on January 1, 2018, amended several provisions of the California Civil Code to set forth language that further clarifies what condominium associations can and cannot do with respect to the installation of an owners own solar energy system on a common area roof and exclusive use common. 
Recent legal Developments affect community association interests in a variety of ways. In 2017, the California Court of Appeal decided several cases concerning such issues as title to common area and board member liability. These cases may be instructive to board members and managers. Meanwhile, on the legislative front, new and pending laws affect association interests in the areas of governance, business dealing, FHA certification, annual notifications and use restrictions. Though not a complete or authoritative guide, we hope this article (published in the Winter 2017 Volume 10, Issue 1 of the Communicator, Community Association Institute/Bay Area/Central California Chapter’s news magazine) can be a useful resource for the most relevant legal updates this year. 
SwedelsonGottlieb annually updates and publishes its Disclosure and Notice Checklist as a resource for Managers and Board Members of California Community Associations. The updated Checklist is 14 pages (there are a lot of things that California community associations are required to give notice of or disclose) and sets out what disclosures and notices California community associations are to provide to homeowners, when and how they are to be provided, as well as other considerations. Included is information regarding the Code requirements for the Annual Budget Report, the Annual Policy Statement, Fiscal Year End Disclosures, and other Additional Disclosures/Notices. We have included information regarding the recent changes to Civil Code Section 4041 relating to the solicitation of owner mailing addresses, etc. and the required New Management Disclosures. 
By David C. Swedelson, Community Association Attorney at SwedelsonGottlieb
According to CAI’s California Legislative Action Committee, there is still time to stop AB 634, a bill that impacts a condominium association’s ability to control the placement of solar panels in common interest developments. BUT YOU MUST ACT TODAY BEFORE THE GOVERNOR SIGNS THIS BILL INTO LAW.
By the Community Association Attorneys at SwedelsonGottlieb.
Since the old Davis-Stirling Act was made into law in 1985, there has been a small debate over whether an owner or their association is responsible for temporary relocation costs incurred when owners in a common interest development are required to vacate their units or homes for common area repairs. Former California Civil Code Section 1364(c) stated that the “costs of temporary relocation during the repair and maintenance of the areas within the responsibility of the association shall be borne by the owner of the separate interest affected.” On its own, this provision seems clear enough; however, because this language was found in the code section that also dealt with termite fumigation, and because it followed the provision dealing with termite fumigation, some owners were confused and debated the issue with their association’s board and management, claiming that unless the relocation was as a result of a treatment for termites, their association had to pay their relocation costs. They were confused and wrong.