HOA Law Blog

By W. Alexander Noland, Esq., SwedelsonGottlieb Associate Attorney

There tends to be a great deal of confusion over service, companion and therapy animals, and, particularly, service, companion and therapy dogs. While the Americans with Disabilities Act does not generally apply to community associations unless an association opens its common areas and recreational facilities to the general public (e.g. allowing people other than residents and their guests to use the association’s pool, rent the association’s clubhouse or take lessons at the association’s tennis court), state and federal fair housing laws do apply to community associations. Association boards and managers should be aware that homeowners do have the right, subject to certain restrictions, to bring service, companion and therapy dogs into their separate interests, even when those dogs violate pet restrictions contained in an association’s governing documents (e.g. keeping or bringing the dog into the association’s development violates restrictions on the number of dogs, dog weight limits or dog breeds).

Continue reading " What are Homeowners’ Rights Regarding Service, Companion & Therapy Dogs? " »

By Sandra L. Gottlieb, Esq. and Stephanie Rohde, Esq.

Now that the rainy season is soon upon us, many associations have been scrambling to get their association roofs repaired or replaced to avoid water intrusion issues (leaks). In every roofing contract that we have prepared or reviewed, the most important issue is the warranty.

A roofing contract should include two types of warranties, the manufacturer’s warranty and the roofing contractor’s warranty. Typically, the manufacturer’s warranty will cover a long period of time (10-20 years), and may include materials and possibly workmanship, but generally excludes “incidental and consequential damages.” This means if something goes wrong (and the new roof leaks), the manufacturer will cover the work that was performed under the contract (i.e., it will pay to replace the roof, but not the cost of labor) but will not do anything about the resulting damage from the leaks, like the damaged ceiling, walls, furniture, carpet, etc. This is an especially important consideration and issue in a roofing contract, where poor workmanship can result in extensive water damage and/or mold intrusion throughout both the common area and individual units. And in our experience, workmanship is usually the source of the leaks, not the material.

Continue reading " Roofing Contracts: What Kind of Warranty Do You Need? " »

CAR has let it be known that it plans to introduce a bill in 2011 that will effectively restrict or limit the fees that community association management companies now charge for such things as ownership transfers and compliance with Civil Code Section 1368. This is likely going to be a very contentious issue, as these are fees that the owners of the specific property that is making the request should be required to pay directly to management. If CAR's legislation were to become effective, it is likely that owners in escrows would only be required to pay the actual costs of duplication, etc. As a consequence, the associations would themselves end up paying the fees for the manager’s services, which would in turn be paid by all owners. How can community associations budget for these fees when they have no idea how many requests they will get in a fiscal year? Why should all owners pay for a service that benefits only one owner? This proposed legislation will negatively impact management and associations.

For example, consider the result that occurred when the legislature amended Civil Code Section 1365.2 a few years ago. That code section deals with an association's obligation to provide owners with records. Civil Code Section 1365.2 limits the fees and charges that can be charged to the requesting owner. As a result, the additional fees charged by the manager for finding, compiling and preparing the requested association records for production ends up getting paid by all owners and not the owner that made the request. Management companies are entitled to be paid for these extra services, and the payment for these services should come from the owner requesting the service.

This proposed legislation seeks to overturn the 2007 Court of Appeal decision in Berryman v. Merit Property Management that held that the documentation and transfer fees charged by management are products of market forces and are not subject to statutory control.

For more information, see an informational statement prepared by the California Association of Community Managers (CACM) and a more detailed summary of the Berryman decision.

Posted by SwedelsonGottlieb Partner David C. Swedelson, who is also a member of CACM’s Legislative Affairs Committee

Karen Conlon from the California Association of Community Managers (CACM) reports that in this most recent legislative session, Senate Bill 294 was introduced for the purpose of consolidating and downsizing the numerous boards, commissions, etc. that exist in California. To protect the CACM manager certification standards in the Business & Professions Codes, CACM asked that the sunset provision in B&P Section 11506 be extended and NOT eliminated as a result of this bill. By doing so, manager certification standards would be preserved. The Senate B&P Committee agreed to this request. Follow this link to see the portion of the bill that reflects the extension of the sunset provision to January 1, 2015 (the sunset provision was originally due to expire January 2012). SB 294 was signed by the Governor and chaptered into law. Congratulations to CACM.