HOA Law Blog

November 3, 2008

DON’T FORGET TO VOTE ON NOVEMBER 4TH

As a reminder, Tuesday, November 4th is Election Day, and it is important that you exercise your right and duty as a citizen to vote. We are not voting on just who will be our next President, but there are a number of other initiatives on the ballot that are worthy of your consideration.

The polls will be open from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. Despite the unprecedented number of voters who cast their ballots early, experts are forecasting long lines.

Employees are entitled to take off two hours (under California law) to vote, without losing any pay if they are working during that time period and will not have sufficient time outside of working hours to vote. Employees may take off as much time as they need to vote, but only two hours of that time will be paid. An employee can take time off for voting only at the beginning or end of their regular work shift, unless they make other arrangements with their employer. If an employee believes that they will need time off to vote, they must have notified their employer at least two working days prior to the election (California Elections Code Section 14000).

October 31, 2008

Political Signs and Community Associations in California

by David C. Swedelson

Early voting is underway and, as expected, we have received calls complaining about political signs. You may be getting questions or comments about sign regulation in your communities, so we thought it would be a good idea to let you know what goes, and what does not, in community associations with regard to political signs. Some people assume that there is no way that community associations can regulate political signs because prohibiting signs would violate a resident’s right of free speech under the First Amendment to the Constitution. While there is some validity to this assumption, it is not entirely correct in the community association context.

It is common to have sign regulation in community associations, particularly with respect to “For Sale” signs. Civil Code sections 712 and 713 make any blanket prohibitions void. While owners can have these signs on their property, they are not entitled, for example, to post these signs on the common area.

The question, then, is whether there is a distinction between “For Sale” signs and political signs, considering the fact that political signs seem to have more to do with free speech than “For Sale” signs. When analyzing government regulation of speech, the courts often distinguish between “commercial speech” and other types of speech, and find that commercial speech is not entitled to the same level of protection as other types of speech. But does that matter in a community association?

October 31, 2008

We Hate to Say We Told You So But Associations Need to Budget for Bad Debt

by David C. Swedelson

For the last two years, we have been recommending that California community associations add a bad debt allowance in their budgets. Since about 2000, rising home prices and the level of equity in those homes meant that few homeowners were willing to lose their homes through foreclosure for non-payment of their assessments. As a result, community associations were, for the most part, able to collect delinquent assessments and the fees and costs incurred in collecting same, and as a result, they did not see a disruption in the flow of income. Over the last year, we have seen a significant change in the economy. Many homeowners who could not really afford to buy their homes were able to purchase them with little or no money down and finance them with either subprime or Alt-A loans. They are now losing their condominiums, townhomes, and single family homes in planned developments in record numbers, as they cannot afford the increased costs of their loan and their association’s levied assessments. As a consequence, many community associations are not receiving the income that they expected when they distributed their budget for 2008. This shortfall has resulted in many associations not funding reserves. We are advised that some are not making all of the appropriate repairs and are deferring renovation and maintenance of the common area. This is NOT a good idea and could subject an association to liability if, for example, that failure to maintain or repair caused damage or injury.

The point is that if you have not yet distributed your 2009 budget, the board and management need to seriously consider adding what most businesses call a “bad debt allowance” in their budgets to compensate for the income that the association may likely not receive.

Having been in the community association business as attorneys for more than twenty (20) years, this is not the first time that we have seen an increase in homeowner defaults. We saw it in the eighties and again in the nineties, when homeowners were “upside down” on their mortgages. Now they call it “negative equity,” and already one million homes have been foreclosed on nationwide, with another one and a half million other homeowners potentially losing their homes in 2009.

October 30, 2008

Associations Must Act Timely and Decisively to Enforce Covenants

by David C. Swedelson

Associations Must Act Timely and Decisively to Enforce Covenants

This summary of a recent Court of Appeals decision was published in the October 2008 edition of the Community Association Law Reporter published by Community Associations institute. What do you think of the Court’s decision?

Pacific Hills Homeowners Association v. Prun, No. G038244, Cal. App. Ct., March 20, 2008
Covenants Enforcement: If an association does not act timely and decisively in enforcing covenants, then the association may face penalties if the dispute goes to court.

Jon and Linda Prun live in a planned community in Mission Viejo, Calif. Their property is subject to a declaration of covenants, conditions, and restrictions, which is enforced by the Pacific Hills Homeowners Association (“association”). The declaration requires that prior written approval from the association’s architectural committee is needed before construction of any improvement, including a fence or wall, can commence. The association also adopted architectural guidelines that limit fences to six feet in height unless the fence is within 20 feet of the front property line, in which case the maximum height is three feet.
Continue reading

January 5, 2008

PRIVACY NOTICE AND EMAIL POLICY

by David C. Swedelson

PRIVACY NOTICE

Email communications from SwedelsonGottlieb contain information that (a) may be confidential, legally privileged, proprietary in nature, or otherwise protected by law from disclosure, and (b) is intended to be read and/or only for the use of the addressee(s) named in the email. If you are not the addressee of this email, or if the email was sent to you in error, you are hereby notified that reading, copying or distributing the email is prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please so notify us in a reply to this email. Thank you.

EMAIL POLICY

August 11, 2006

Civil Code Section 1363.03 – New Election Law FAQs

by David C. Swedelson

As you hopefully know by now, as of July 1, 2006, the way all California community associations conduct elections and membership votes was changed. Among the major changes is the requirement that all elections and certain other membership votes be held by secret ballot pursuant to operating rules. This includes votes for the selection and removal of members of the board, amendments to the governing documents, votes regarding assessments, and the grant of exclusive use common area. In addition, the role of the inspectors of election has grown significantly, and the use of proxies, while still permitted, may not be as prevalent as in the past. This new law affects all community associations, irrespective of their size. Failure to comply with the new law could subject an association to a challenge in small claims court. Because this new law is so complex, we are receiving a lot of questions. In response, we present the following frequently asked questions:

1. Our Association has always had secret ballots; can’t we just keep on holding our annual elections as we have been doing for years?

The simple answer is no. The new election law was adopted because Senator Battin from the Coachella Valley somehow came to believe that fraud was rampant within association elections. This was news to us. If an association does not comply with the new law, which includes, among other things, the adoption of election rules and procedures, which specify procedures for voting by secret ballot, designating and detailing the responsibilities of the inspector(s) of election, the voting results can be challenged and a fine imposed on the association. We do not believe that the new election law is required as we certainly do not see rampant fraud at associations, but it is the law and if you do not fully comply, there are potential serious consequences.

December 23, 2000

AB 2736 Architectural Review

by David C. Swedelson

New Procedures Apply To The Adoption Of “Operating Rules”

The Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act was amended effective January 2003 by adding Civil Code Sections 1357.100 through 1357.150 which require that certain rules and regulations of an association defined in the Civil Code as “operating rules” satisfy specified criteria before that operating rule becomes effective. For certain categories of rule changes listed in the Civil Code, the board of directors of an association must give its members at least 30 days’ notice of a proposed rule change prior to adopting the rule change. The notice must include the text of the rule change and a description of the purpose and effect of the rule can; however, rules adopted for emergency purposes are exempt from the notice requirements.

Once the 30 day notice period expires, the Board may adopt the proposed rule change. The Board must notify the members soon as possible after the rule has been and no more than 15 days after making the rule change.

December 23, 2000

Do You Have An Internal Dispute Resolution Process

by David C. Swedelson

Effective January 1, 2005, Assembly Bill 1836 changes the current requirements and process for Alternative Dispute Resolution, by amending the existing provisions of the Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act (“Act) and adding additional provisions to the Act. This Bill was introduced to enact recommendations made by the California Law Review Commission (CLRC). This new legislation requires that associations adopt some form of Internal Dispute Resolution process, as discussed below, and it also expands the scope of the disputes to which the Alternative Dispute Resolution processes must or can be applied within community associations.

Existing law requires that certain disputes be submitted to Alternative Dispute Resolution prior to a lawsuit being filed, either by a homeowner or by the association. This Bill establishes a two-tier process to address disputes prior to enforcement through the court system. As of 2005, associations are required to implement an informal process by which homeowners and boards “meet and confer” to discuss their disputes. The CLRC came to the conclusion that some association boards were not talking with homeowners regarding their disputes, and felt that by encouraging personal communication that many disputes would be resolved without court intervention.

If the dispute is not resolved through the informal “meet and confer” process, either the owner/member or the association must still submit the dispute to some form of formal Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) prior to filing a lawsuit in the Superior Court.

December 8, 2000

REVISED Board of Directors Resolution to Record a Lien

by David C. Swedelson

The new laws affecting collection of delinquent assessments now require the Board of Directors of an Association to vote during an open meeting of the Board to make the decision to record a lien. S&G and Association Lien Services has developed a simple Resolution Document that details all of the steps that need to be taken during that Board meeting to ensure compliance with the California Civil Code. Just click on the link below to download the Resolution Document (REVISED January 2006)

Download bod_lien_resolution_final.pdf

November 29, 2000

Podcast/MP3 – SB 137 Teleconference

by David C. Swedelson

Missed the recent teleconference but still want to hear what Sandra Gottlieb and David Swedelson had to say about SB 137 and the new assessment collection law and procedures? You are in luck. Download this MP3 file to your IPOD, computer or other device that will allow you to listen to this important seminar. If you want a CD with this MP3, contact jennie@sghoalaw.com.

Download sg_sb_137_teleconference.mp3