HOA Law Blog

December 14, 2015

HAM Radio Legislation Passes the Senate Committee

We received an urgent message from the office of Government Affairs at Community Associations Institute’s national office regarding the federal legislation on HAM radios, H.R. 1301. We previously reported on this legislation but it has passed another hurdle, so we are again requesting that you contact your representative to voice your opposition to this legislation. The following is the message we received from CAI:

As you may recall, last month the Amateur Radio Parity Act of 2015 (S. 1685) passed the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. Your action is needed today, as the bill will likely be referred to the Energy and Commerce Committee for debate.

H.R. 1301 invalidates community association rules and architectural standards that govern the installation and use of amateur radio towers and antennas. If this bill should become law, Congress will be able to rewrite the private, contractual agreement that you signed upon buying into your community association.

November 12, 2015

Culver City Smoking Ordinance Impacts Condos; Upcoming Deadline & Questions of Enforcement

by David C. Swedelson

By David Swedelson and Kevin McNiff, Community Association Attorneys at SwedelsonGottlieb

No_Smoking_By_City_Ordinance_Sign_NHE-12045_No_Smoking.png
In August of 2014, we wrote about Culver City’s no-smoking ordinance that would affect common interest developments. The full text of the ordinance may be read through the city’s website here. We have recently received questions from concerned association managers and board members as to whether Culver City condo associations would be responsible for enforcing the ordinance. As the time nears for the smoking ban to go into effect, such questions and concerns will likely be more common for condo boards and managers who are affected. The short answer is yes, Culver City seems to have attempted to make the associations responsible for enforcing the City’s ban on smoking in buildings with multiple units, although it remains to be seen what level of enforcement will be required.
Continue reading

October 30, 2015

Aretha Franklin Sings The Blues Over Lawsuit Filed To Collect Her Unpaid HOA Assessments

by David C. Swedelson

By David Swedelson, Partner, Swedelson Gottlieb, California Community Association Attorneys

B99318139Z.1_20151027165337_000_GI0KKHP2.1-0.jpeg I was alerted to a news story out of Detroit where legendary singer Aretha Franklin is being sued for her failure to pay more than $11,563 to the Hills of Lone Pine Association.

Interesting quotes from Ms. Franklin: “It is my property. I don’t live there and feel I have (been) overcharged for years,” Franklin said. “My attorney has been discussing this with them. And I have paid what I felt was credible and legitimate.” She has been “overcharged for years.” She has paid what she “felt was credible and legitimate.” Seriously?! She sounds like many of the delinquent owners we have had to deal with over the years.

October 21, 2015

California HOAs Cannot Restrict An Owner From Flying The American Flag

by David C. Swedelson

Interesting article on restrictions on flying the American flag in Utah. Follow this link to read attorney Peter Harrison’s article that addresses this issue. His article references the great respect that many of us share for our flag and what it stands for. According to Harrison’s article, the Freedom to Display the Flag Act of 2005 (federal law) does not “completely override an HOA’s CC&Rs.”

Things are different here in California. Our Civil Code/Davis Stirling Act expressly prohibits California Community Associations from limiting or prohibiting the display of the flag of the United States on a member’s separate interest or within their exclusive use common area. Follow this link to read our Civil Code Section 4705. We in California do respect our Flag and what it stands for, and no California community association should restrict any owner from flying the flag so long as it meets the requirements of the Code.

David Swedelson is a senior partner at SwedelsonGottlieb, Community Association Attorneys

October 20, 2015

Governor Brown Signs New Law Prohibiting Restrictions On Clotheslines

by David C. Swedelson

California homeowner associations can no longer prohibit the drying of clothes on outdoor clotheslines after Gov. Jerry Brown signed a bill restricting homeowners associations from banning same. This legislation was opposed by a number of groups who felt that clotheslines are unsightly additions to neighborhoods.

Assemblywoman Patty López (D-San Fernando) announced Brown signed her bill, AB 1448, which will allow line drying for people once restricted by their property management organizations or homeowner associations.

“Growing up, my family and many of my neighbors used clotheslines as the way to dry their clothes and other laundry,” López said in a statement. “Californians can now do their part for the environment while saving money on their electric bill by using the sunlight to dry their laundry.”

September 16, 2015

It’s 2015 – How Are You Communicating in Your Community?

by David C. Swedelson

Join SwedelsonGottlieb Senior Partner David Swedelson, co-presenter Karen Kokowicz of Coro Community Management & Consulting and the Channel Islands Chapter of Community Associations Institute on September 22, 2015, and learn how to communicate better in your association.

Follow this link to register for this event.

This program will cover:

September 11, 2015

Governor Brown signs AB 349 Prohibiting HOA Prohibitions on Artificial Turf

by David C. Swedelson

By David Swedelson and Sandra Gottlieb, Partners at SwedelsonGottlieb, Community Association Attorneys

Governor Brown has signed AB 349, an urgency statute which takes effect immediately. AB 349 amends Section 4735 of the Civil Code, and it prevents associations from prohibiting the installation of artificial turf, or “any other synthetic surface that resembles grass.”

AB 349 also amends Civil Code Section 4735 to prohibit any requirement that an owner remove or reverse water-efficient landscaping measures that were installed in response to a declaration of a state of emergency, upon the conclusion of the state of emergency.

It should be noted that this is not the first time legislation has been introduced to address HOA bans on artificial turf. The California legislature passed similar proposed bills in 2010 and 2011, but then-Governor Schwarzenegger vetoed the 2010 bill, and current Governor Brown vetoed the 2011 bill.
Continue reading

August 31, 2015

New Florida Law Regarding Fining and Suspending Use Rights Tells Us That They Do It Differently

by David C. Swedelson

By David Swedelson, Partner at SwedelsonGottlieb, Community Association Attorneys

If you thought that the laws in other states regarding condos and HOAs were the same as ours, you were way wrong. And that is certainly the case when it comes to fining and/or penalizing owners for violations. On July 1, 2015, new provisions which clarify the procedures in Florida for fining and use right suspensions for non-monetary violations became effective. An article by Florida community association attorney Jeffrey Rembaum describes this new law.

The term “non-monetary violations” refers to violations such as failing to pressure clean roofs (seriously?) and driveways, to remove dead trees, to bring in the garbage cans and to pick up after your pet, etc., and excludes penalties for delinquent payment of assessments.

According to Rembaum, “[t]hese new provisions were put into place to clarify the manner in which an association’s board of directors and its fining and suspensions committee coexist. Prior to these provisions, there were some who were unsure as to whether the fining and suspensions committee would first meet and then the board of directors would levy the fine, or if the board of directors would first meet, determine the amount of the fine, and then the fining committee would meet to provide the offending owner with the opportunity to be heard. Now, it is patently clear. The board must take action first.”
Continue reading

August 27, 2015

New FHA/VA Disclosures Required in California Condo Annual Budget Reports

by David C. Swedelson

By Sandra L. Gottlieb, Esq., Senior Partner and Mark Petrie, Marketing Coordinator at SwedelsonGottlieb

On August 12, 2015, Governor Brown signed AB 596, which adds the following two new required disclosures to the Annual Budget Report for California condominium associations (this does not include planned developments or other common interest developments).

(10) When the common interest development is a condominium project, a statement describing the status of the common interest development as a Federal Housing Administration (FHA)-approved condominium project pursuant to FHA guidelines, including whether the common interest development is an FHA-approved condominium project. The statement shall be in at least 10-point font on a separate piece of paper and in the following form:

“Certification by the Federal Housing Administration may provide benefits to members of an association, including an improvement in an owner’s ability to refinance a mortgage or obtain secondary financing and an increase in the pool of potential buyers of the separate interest.

This common interest development [is/is not (circle one)] a condominium project. The association of this common interest development [is/is not (circle one)] certified by the Federal Housing Administration.”

(11) When the common interest development is a condominium project, a statement describing the status of the common interest development as a federal Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)-approved condominium project pursuant to VA guidelines, including whether the common interest development is a VA-approved condominium project. The statement shall be in at least 10-point font on a separate piece of paper and in the following form:

“Certification by the federal Department of Veterans Affairs may provide benefits to members of an association, including an improvement in an owner’s ability to refinance a mortgage or obtain secondary financing and an increase in the pool of potential buyers of the separate interest.

This common interest development [is/is not (circle one)] a condominium project. The association of this common interest development [is/is not (circle one)] certified by the federal Department of Veterans Affairs.”
Continue reading

August 20, 2015

Good Fences and Bad Neighbors Impacting Your Homeowners Association

by David C. Swedelson

By David Swedelson, Partner at SwedelsonGottlieb, California Community Association Attorneys

Your community association prides itself on how beautiful and well maintained the common area is. But the owner of the neighboring apartment/condominium/home/property is from Planet “Who Cares”. The fence that borders your property is an eyesore, and the neighboring property owner refuses to talk to the board or management about the situation. Is there anything you can do? This situation is more common than you might think, and the answer is yes!

On January 1, 2014, the California Legislature updated Section 841 of the California Civil Code regarding “good neighbor” fences, a common fence dividing two properties. The original law, in place since the 1870s, simply provided that both owners were mutually responsible for common fences. As a practical matter, if your neighbor paid to put up a fence, you were obligated to reimburse your neighbor for one-half of the “reasonable cost” of that fence. If you paid to put up the fence, your neighbor had to reimburse you. As for how to agree on the cost of the fence and how to collect your half, the law was silent. You were on your own.

The good news is that the new law does address these issues, and with more specificity. The 2014 law, like the 1870s law, operates on the presumption that neighbors benefit equally from a common fence, and that the cost for building or fixing a common fence should be shared equally even if the fence is on the neighbor’s property. But the 2014 law doesn’t stop there. It goes into detail, outlining a step-by-step process for erecting or repairing a common fence, and explains exactly how to recover half of the cost. The law also lays out exceptions to the equal-benefit, equal-cost assumption.
Continue reading