articletitle.pngEach year, there are a number of cases, Court of Appeal or California Supreme Court decisions involving California community associations. These are cases that we lawyers rely upon. Last year (2012), there were several important cases that are important for community association managers and board members to know about. The details of the cases are discussed in an article that Sandra Gottlieb prepared for the Greater Los Angeles Chapter of Community Associations Institute. Below is a brief summary of the highlights:

• Arbitration clauses contained in CC&Rs are enforceable by a developer unless proven to be unreasonable. (Pinnacle Museum Tower Association v. Pinnacle Market Development)

• A board candidate who disparages another candidate is not protected by the First Amendment, litigation privilege or Anti-SLAPP statute. (Silk v. Feldman)

By David Swedelson, Partner, SwedelsonGottlieb, Community Association Attorneys

parkingspaces.png

The Los Angeles Times reports (on January 1, 2013) that as a result of government imposed fees on investors that do not reside in their apartments (we assume condos) or buy to flip them, in Hong Kong real estate investors are scrambling to buy parking spaces that are not subject to the fees. “Single spaces are now selling for more than some modest Southern California homes. Someone paid $288,000 in November 2012 for a parking space in a luxury apartment complex on Hong Kong Island. Or the $166,000 tab for a spot in a suburban development called Festival City. A space attached to an exclusive cliffside townhouse community in the ocean view neighborhood of Repulse Bay fetched $385,000 in March. And those are just the recorded sales.”
Continue reading

By Sandra L. Gottlieb, Senior Partner and Community Association Attorney at SwedelsonGottlieb

restrictedrent.png

California Civil Code Section 1360.2 went into effect on January 1, 2012, a little over one year ago, and states that any new provision in a governing document or an amendment to a governing document that prohibits the rental or leasing of any of the separate interests is not applicable to anyone who purchased before the date the governing document and/or amendment was adopted or recorded unless that person expressly consents to be bound. Notwithstanding the limitations created by Civil Code Section 1360.2, many community associations are still adopting new rental restrictions to be applied to new owners or transferees. What they are learning is that not all transfers of an interest in a property will be covered by Civil Code Section 1360.2 which allows for certain exemptions from a leasing restriction. Certain transfers of property do not constitute a change in ownership and therefore, the new owner may not be subject to any provisions prohibiting leasing that were adopted after the new owner obtained title to the separate interest (i.e., unit or lot).
Continue reading

By Sandra L. Gottlieb, Esq. Senior Partner at SwedelsonGottlieb, Community Association Attorneys

daycare.jpg

Did you know that California community associations are required to allow an owner to operate a “family day care home” within their unit or lot at an association and that the day care can have up to 14 kids in it!? Yup, it is true. This blog post is intended to address family day care homes and what your association can do to deal with them to reduce, if not eliminate, its liability and protect the community.
Continue reading

Screenshot%2012%3A14%3A12%206%3A03%20PM.pngBlog article by David C. Swedelson, Esq.


On occasion, a director will seek to appoint another person to attend board meetings on their behalf (and make board decisions and vote as if they were a board member), or a homeowner’s friend or relative will attend the homeowners forum and attempt to speak on the homeowner’s behalf. This article is intended to address and explain the concept of “Power of Attorney”, or in other words, the ability for a person to appoint a representative to act on their behalf.

Can a representative attend executive or open session meetings and sit in the director’s seat, make and vote on items of business within the board’s authority?

Screenshot%20ExecCommittee.pngBlog Post by David Swedelson, Founding Partner SwedelsonGottlieb

Recent amendments to the Davis-Stirling Act have made it challenging for community association boards of directors to “deal” with important Association business. Don’t know what I’m talking about? As of January 1, 2012, the California Legislature has imposed a prohibition on Boards taking action on any “item of business” outside of a properly noticed Board meeting. Obviously, the inability of a board to make “decisions” via email can restrict a Board’s ability to make time sensitive decisions.

There are ways around this prohibition which would allow a Board of Directors to remain in compliance with the Civil Code. Specifically, Civil Code 1363.05 provides an exception to a board’s ability to conduct business by excluding “those actions that the board has delegated to any person or persons (management, agent, officer of the association, or committee of the board comprising less than a majority of the directors). But there may be issues as to how much authority a committee actually has to make decisions that normally the board would be required to make.

Screenshot%2012%3A4%3A12%203%3A05%20PM.png Blog Post By David Swedelson, SwedelsonGottlieb Community Association Attorneys

I recently posted a blog article regarding the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act or commonly referred to as the “FDCPA”. Follow this link for my blog post entitled Neither a Community Association Nor its Management Have Liability Under the Federal Fair Debt Collections Practices Act.

I received several questions and comments regarding the FDCPA. Some readers reminded me that Community Associations Institute (CAI) has a policy statement regarding the FDCPA. Follow this link to CAI’s Overview of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and follow this link to CAI’s policy.

Screenshot%2011%3A29%3A12%207%3A17%20PM.pngBlog Post by David Swedelson, SwedelsonGottlieb Community Association Attorneys

We are often asked whether persons who are not members of the association can attend association board meetings. The short answer to this question is yes, subject to the considerations discussed below. We are also asked if non-members can be excluded from board meetings; the answer is yes, and this is also subject to considerations that are addressed below.

California Corporations Code § 1363.05, known as the Common Interest Development Open Meeting Act, provides, at subsection (b), that any member of the association may attend meetings of the association’s oard of directors, except executive session meetings of the board. This statutory provision is silent as to whether non-owner residents of the association or other non-members can attend open/general session Board meetings. Further, most association’s bylaws do not prohibit non-members from attending board meetings, and are silent on this issue.
Continue reading

You-are-so-annoying.jpgBlog Post by David Swedelson, Partner SwedelsonGottlieb

As community association attorneys, we are often called upon to deal with neighbor to neighbor complaints and disputes. Well, often is probably an understatement. How about daily? These complaints generally deal with smoke from cigarettes and more lately from (medical) marijuana, hard surface floor noise, owners that fail to pick up after their pets, loud stereos and TVs, and sometimes complaints regarding loud sex. At most condos and HOAs, residents expect their association to be their intermediary. And sometimes we do receive copies of some interesting notes that had been passed on to the offending owner or resident, and sometimes they are quite comical.

A manager of condominium associations referred me to a series of photos posted by the Huffington Post with the title “Most WTF Notes From Annoyed Owners” consisting of 31 photographs of notes from neighbors “reminding their fellow man to stop having sex so loudly, pick up their dog’s waste and other assorted annoyances.” The photos of notes gave me quite a chuckle, especially this one, and I thought I would share them with readers of our blog. Note that these photos include some NSFW (not safe for work) language that some might find offensive. Follow this link to see all the photos.

legislative.png
We have been receiving a number of inquiries regarding Assembly Bill 2273 that was signed into law by the Governor, effective as of January 1, 2013, that amends Civil Code Section 2924b. This new law requires: (1) recordation of a trustee’s deed upon sale within 30 days of the sale; and (2) a copy of a recorded trustee’s deed upon sale to be provided to an association within 15 days of the trustee’s sale, provided that the association has recorded the statutorily required request for notice on the subject property pursuant to Section 2924b(f) prior to the recordation of the trustee’s notice of default. (Currently, the copy of the recorded trustee’s deed must be provided to associations within 15 days of the date the trustee’s deed upon sale is recorded.)

Follow this link to download our full printable article on this matter.

Contact Information