Lila Chee (“Chee”) is a 71-year-old resident owner of a condominium at the Marina Seagate condominium complex. She was allegedly injured when a Jack Russell Terrier owned by Olga Kiymaz, at the time a tenant in the condominium next door, ran out of Kiymaz’s unit, unrestrained by a leash. The dog jumped on Chee, allegedly causing her to fall and sustain numerous injuries. Kiymaz rented the condominium from unit owner Jerome Brown. Chee filed a second amended complaint against Brown, the Marina Seagate Homeowners Association (“Association”), and others. Chee brought Brown and the Association (and Brown’s property managers who rented the unit to Kiymaz) into the lawsuit after Kiymaz filed for bankruptcy and was dismissed from the action.
]]> Chee alleged that the Association, Brown and his managers were liable for her injuries by allowing a dangerous condition to exist, posing a risk of harm to persons in the common areas. She also alleged that the owner of the condominium unit, Brown, knew or should have known of the Jack Russell’s dangerous propensities.What Chee did not allege was that the owner of the condominium unit or the Association had any actual knowledge the dog was dangerous, and it is assumed that there were no reported prior incidents. Chee attempted to get around this by alleging that Jack Russell Terriers, as a breed, could be dangerous, particularly if not restrained on a leash. She also alleged that the owner of the condominium unit had a duty to inspect and investigate the characteristics of a dog kept on the premises by his tenant.
The trial court granted motions for summary judgment filed on behalf of the Association, the owner and his managers on the basis that there were no questions of fact. Chee appealed that decision.
The court of appeal agreed with and affirmed the trial court’s ruling and pointed out that an owner/landlord does not owe a duty of care to protect a third party from his/her tenant’s dog unless the landlord has actual knowledge of the dog’s dangerous propensities and has the ability to control and prevent the harm. The court also found that in the absence of actual knowledge of the dangerous propensities of the tenant’s dog, a landlord has no vicarious liability for the dog’s behavior.
Chee did present testimony of a dog expert who stated that Jack Russell Terriers should not be confined to a small area such as a condominium. That expert did not say and there was no evidence presented that the Kiymaz’s Jack Russell was dangerous and likely to attack. Because neither the Association nor any of the other defendants had any prior knowledge of problems with Kiymaz’s dog and did not have actual knowledge of any alleged dangerous propensities, they were not liable for negligence or any other cause of action to Chee.
This case confirms that California community associations are not liable for injuries caused by dogs unless the association has actual knowledge of the dog’s dangerous propensities. It is important to note, however, that a community association could be held responsible for some or all of an injured person’s damages if it becomes aware of a dog which has dangerous propensities to others, and fails to take immediate action to deal with the problem.
For example, if the association is aware of a dog that a resident is allowing into the common area unrestrained by a leash, and jumping on others or biting another person, or perhaps even being too aggressive (snarling and/or growling), the owner(s) of the unit where that dog is being maintained should be requested to attend a hearing with the board.
The association may not have to require that the dog be removed from the association or common area. There are other options, depending on the facts. For example, the Association can require that the dog be restrained and kept away from other persons or dogs, that the dog be required to attend obedience training, and/or wear a soft or hard muzzle. If the problems persist, then the board can consider prohibiting the dog from being on the common area (other than to access a vehicle going to and from the unit) or even removed from the association, but this would really require a strong showing that the owner cannot restrain the animal.
Some associations have attempted to prohibit some breeds of dogs because they have a bad reputation. Pit Bulls are a good example. However, except for rare breeds like the Presa Canario (one of which killed a woman in the hallway of an apartment building in San Francisco), most experts agree that almost all breeds of dogs cannot be automatically deemed as being aggressive and/or dangerous such that they should be banned from a community association. Rather, each dog should be evaluated on its own, based upon the actions of the dog and not on the breed alone. Not only could a breed-specific rule be considered arbitrary and unenforceable, it can also be difficult and likely expensive to enforce.
While this case stands for the proposition that a California community association cannot be held liable or responsible for injuries from dogs that were not and could not be anticipated, this ruling applies to other claims as well. In recent cases, the courts have held that property owners and community associations are not liable for injuries from unforeseeable assaults and other unforeseeable claims/injuries. What this also means is that if you know of criminal activity in or immediately around the community, if you know that the roof or pipes are leaking on a regular basis, if you know that the concrete has lifted causing a trip hazard, deal with the problem. This may require disclosure of actual work, repairs or both by the association.
]]>If you are asking what this has to do with California community associations, then you need to read on. California community associations have the ability to secure a delinquent homeowners assessment obligation by recording an assessment lien.
With an increasing number of delinquent homeowners resorting to bankruptcy protection, it is more important than ever that California community associations move quickly with the assessment collection process and record a lien. Keep in mind that the lien cannot be recorded until 30 days after the pre-lien letter with all the required language and attachments (association collection policy, statement of account, etc.) has been sent out to the owner(s) in compliance with the California Civil Code. Click here for more information on what is required for the pre-lien letter.
Unfortunately, many associations are taking too long to take action to collect the assessments that are unpaid and many of them find out too late (after the owner has filed bankruptcy) that as an unsecured creditor, they are likely not going to collect any of the delinquent assessments that were owed.
California law provides associations with the ability to record an assessment lien, and we encourage all association managers and board members to take advantage of the protections built into the law. For more information on recording an assessment lien, please contact Tracy Neal at trn@alslien.com.
]]>The Wall Street Journal Article suggests that "[t]he homeowner association delinquency rate can serve as a leading indicator of sorts because homeowners usually stop paying dues before they stop paying their mortgage." Click here to read the article in the WSJ.
]]>The “perfect storm” is the unprecedented sub-prime crisis coupled with a stock market collapse, accompanied by a significant increase in unemployment. Several commentators have reported that we would see different waves of foreclosures, and that is exactly what ALS has been experiencing. Starting in September of 2008, ALS experienced the first wave of the “sub-prime” owner defaults, assessment delinquencies and resulting lender foreclosures.
]]> Now, we are seeing a new wave of foreclosures because of the huge increase in the number of recently unemployed owners. The Los Angeles Daily News recently reported a 60% increase in home foreclosures in Los Angeles County saying that the increase comes “after moderating for several months, a sign that mounting job losses are exacerbating the market’s woes.The Los Angeles Times recently reported that California has lost 62,100 jobs, pushing the unemployment rate to 11.2%, the fourth worst in the nation. Another report indicated that Los Angeles County’s jobless rate was at 11.4% in March, the highest level since the end of World War II. The rate of unemployed is even higher in other areas of the state.
ALS has received a number of inquiries from board members and managers as to what associations are supposed to do when faced with the possibility that an owner is going to (or has) abandoned their home and the senior lender is poised to foreclose. They are concerned with proceeding non-judicially because so many of these unemployed homeowners have no way of paying their mortgage or keeping their homes. We continue to recommend that associations proceed non-judicially, as the costs and fees that an association will incur are less than the judicial process and obtaining a judgment may, in any event, be a waste of time. A judgment has little value if the owner has no money or assets available for collection.
This perfect storm of economic problems is, of course, increasing the number of foreclosures. But this whole situation, at least for community associations, is further complicated by government action designed to help these homeowners. Earlier this year, there was a federal government moratorium on foreclosures. During that 90-day period, a lot of board members and managers were unsure as to how to proceed, if at all, with collection. ALS always hopes that an owner will pay off or refinance with their lender. With the 90-day delay, however, we could not make a determination of what senior lenders were going to do with the properties, and as a result, boards were uncertain on whether to foreclose on their association assessment liens.
Now, we have learned that the State of California has imposed a new moratorium to help owners work out deals with their lenders. The California Mortgage Banker’s Association sent out a newsletter last week, advising that Governor Schwarzenegger had, in February, signed into law new California Civil Code Section 2923.52, which requires an additional 90-day Notice of Default moratorium period in addition to the first 90-day period before a Notice of Sale can be delinquent. This gives homeowners time to pursue loan modifications to prevent further foreclosure of loans meeting certain criteria identified in that statute.
This new law only applies to trustee deed foreclosures and not to the assessment collection process. Nonetheless, this new law is going to create some additional concerns for boards as they will not know whether to proceed or not proceed with their own association’s foreclosures while some homeowners are purportedly trying to work out a loan modification. The only way to find out is by proceeding!
A recent article in the L.A. Times indicated that there are many owners with the ability to pay who are not paying their home loan because they want to be delinquent so they can be considered for a loan modification. We have learned that these owners are not paying their home loans or their assessments or fees to their associations, and their lenders are so far behind and so unequipped to deal with the situation that they are concentrating on those owners who are closer to, as the article stated, “going down the drain” which probably refers to being close to foreclosure. These other owners are just coasting, and in many cases, their lender has not even started collection or foreclosure process. There is nothing an association can do except to move forward with collection and the non-judicial process to compel the owners to pay.
Some board members and managers are considering the judicial route. The attorneys at Swedelson & Gottlieb tell us that although they will proceed judicially when instructed to do so by their association clients, they are not a fan of this process, because although it may not be difficult to get a judgment, it is frequently difficult to find an asset or property to collect on. Some of our clients have gone to small claims court following the senior foreclosure on a property which has wiped out their association’s lien. While they have been successful in obtaining judgments, they have not been too successful in collecting on those judgments. Typically, an owner who has lost their property in foreclosure has no other assets. Even if they have a job, California law protects those individuals from collection on their salaries or pay from their jobs based on their expenses. Most of these homeowners have very little, if any, equity in their cars, making execution on same largely a waste of time and effort.
Community associations are small businesses. Some are smaller than others. All businesses, from time to time, have “bad debt”. There is only so much an association can do to try and collect these delinquent assessments, and if all reasonable efforts have failed, the board needs to come to the realization that it might have to write off that debt. There are no other easy answers.
Contact Association Lien Services (now with ARMS, our Assessment Recovery Management System) if you need assistance with collecting your delinquent assessments. Call 800-825-5510 x208.
]]>The website HOALeader.com (created to provide support and information to board members and other HOA leaders) recently conducted a survey of HOA leaders on how they were dealing with the problem. Comments from HOA leaders regarding their fears and feelings of helplessness on how this is impacting their communities is interesting; they show that owners are concerned as to how their neighbors’ foreclosures are going to impact the amount of assessments they pay. Follow this link to read the article.
]]>Many of us complain we have so many calls or e-mails to deal with; we complain because there is so much work to do. Some board members complain about the homeowners, about all the delinquencies, about the high cost of insurance, etc., and the list goes on.
How about this: instead of complaining, why not say (or feel) how grateful we are for what we have. If you are employed, stop complaining because 10% of Californians are out of work. If you still have some money in the bank or invested in stocks, stop complaining because some people invested their money in Ponzi schemes.
We all need to stop complaining and look at the bright side of things. Please read the article attached - it's humbling.
]]>Each year, the Orange County Chapter of CAI recognizes an outstanding individual who has been instrumental in the success of the Chapter. The Chapter’s most prestigious award is named after May Russell, a former Irvine Company Executive who helped form CAI and was its first president (CAI started in Orange County). Recipients of this Award were first announced in 1988 at the Chapter’s very first awards dinner. The Award is presented to an individual who has proved exemplary leadership and demonstrated the ideals and objectives of CAI through active participation at the local, regional and/or national level.
Congratulations to Sandra Gottlieb!
]]>In this case, the homeowner requested that the association seal a hole in the slab which had been made as part of the original construction for pipes to pass-through from one unit to the other. There was no question that the hole should be filled in, as it constituted a fire danger. Somehow, the board incorrectly concluded that this hole was the homeowner’s responsibility to deal with, and the homeowner disagreed and sued the Association. The work would have cost the association approximately $2,500 (for that unit); instead, the case cost the Association hundreds of thousands of dollars for attorneys' fees and costs. The Court of Appeals decision (click here) provides an excellent discussion on a homeowner's versus the condominium association's repair responsibilities and the director's duty of care as well. The Court’s discussion on this issue follows:
]]> DISCUSSIONTo provide context for the following discussion, we begin with some basic legal principles. First among these is an understanding of the general nature of a non-profit homeowners association; next is the nature of the liability of such an
association and its directors.
Under California law, a "condominium project" is a form of common interest development. A "condominium" is "an undivided interest in common in a portion of real property coupled with a separate interest in space called a unit . . . ." (§1351, subd. (f).) Unless the governing documents provide otherwise, the common area of a condominium project is owned by the owners of the separate interests as tenants in common. In addition to the combined ownership of the two estates enumerated above, the major characteristics of a condominium include an agreement among the unit owners regulating the administration and maintenance of the property. The agreement is reflected in the governing documents of the association; which includes the declaration and any other documents, such as bylaws, operating rules of the association, and articles of incorporation which govern the operation of the common interest development. (§1351, subd. (j).)
The development's restrictions should be contained in its recorded declaration, but may also be contained in an association's internal rules or bylaws. (§§ 1353, 1354.) The CC&R's bind all owners of separate interests in the development.
After its creation, a common interest development is managed by an association [aka homeowner's association.] (Civ. Code § 1363.) Associations are responsible for the maintenance of the development's common areas. An association can be unincorporated or incorporated. (Civ. Code § 1363, subd. (a).) Most associations are incorporated under the Nonprofit Mutual Benefit Corporation Law. (Corp. Code §§ 7110-8910.) Unless the governing documents provide otherwise, an incorporated or unincorporated association may exercise the powers granted to a nonprofit mutual benefit corporation. (Civ. Code § 1363, subd. (c).) The association is governed by a board of directors and the powers of the directors are enumerated in the development's governing documents. State and federal statutes as well as common law impose obligations on the directors.
The Association's Duty of Care
The existence of a duty "is not an immutable fact, but rather an expression of policy considerations leading to the legal conclusion that a plaintiff is entitled to a defendant's protection." (Ludwig v. City of San Diego (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 1105, 1110.) Courts have repeatedly declared the existence of a duty by landowners to maintain property in their possession and control in a reasonably safe condition. (Rowland v. Christian (1968) 69 Cal.2d 108,119; Vasquez v. Residential Investments, Inc. (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 269.) The duty is described as follows: "a landlord must act toward his tenant as a reasonable person under all of the circumstances, including the likelihood of injury, the probable seriousness of such injury, the burden of reducing or avoiding the risk, and his degree of control over the risk-creating seriousness of such injury, the burden of reducing or avoiding the risk, and his degree of control over the risk-creating defect," (Brennan v. Cockrell Investments, Inc. (1973) 35 Cal.App.3d 796, 800-801; Golden v. Conway (1976) 55
Cal.App.3d 948, 955.)
In addition to this potential basis for liability, a homeowners association is also potentially liable for any violation of statute, administrative code regulation, or building code provision relating to the condition of the property. In such situations, failure to comply with the statutory standard may give rise to a presumption of negligence on his part. (Gallup v. Sparks-Mundo Engineering Co. (1954) 43 Cal.2d 1, 9; Tossman v. Newman (1951) 37 Cal.2d 522, 525; Williams v. Lambert (1962) 201 Cal.App.2d 115, 119; Alarid v. Vanier (1958) 50 Cal.2d 617, 621.) Such presumption of negligence may arise whether the law violated is a state statute, a safety order, an administrative regulation, or a local building code provision.
Traditional tort principles impose on landlords, including homeowner associations, that function as a landlord in maintaining the common areas of a large condominium complex, a duty to exercise due care for the residents' safety in those areas under their control. (See, e.g., Kwaitkowski v. Superior Trading Co. (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 324, 328; O'Hara v. Western Seven Trees Corp. (1977) 75 Cal.App.3d 798, 802-803; Kline v. 1500 Massachusetts Avenue Apartment Corp. (D.C. Cir.1970) 439 F.2d 477, 480-481; Scott v. Watson (1976) 359 A.2d 548, 552; Sevigny v. Dibble Hollow Condominium Assn., Inc. (2003) 76 Conn.App. 306.) California cases hold that a homeowners association is liable to a member who suffers injury or damages as a result of alleged negligence of the association in failing to maintain a common area adequately.
In the leading case of White v. Cox (1971) 17 Cal.App.3d 824, the court of appeal held that a condominium owner could sue the unincorporated association for negligently maintaining a sprinkler in a common area of the complex. In so holding, the court recognized that the plaintiff, a member of the unincorporated association, had no "effective control over the operation of the common areas . . . for in fact he had no more control over operations than he would have had as a stockholder in a corporation which owned and operated the project." (Id. at p. 830.) Since the condominium association was a management body over which the individual owner had no effective control, the court held that the association could be sued for negligence by an individual member.
An assessment of the individual arrangements for each condominium association would be required in order to asses the issue of liability. The Supreme Court concluded "that a condominium possesses sufficient aspects of an unincorporated association to make it liable in tort to its members." (Ibid.) The White case was reaffirmed and cited with approval by the Supreme Court in Frances T. v. Village Green Owners Assn. (1986) 42 Cal 3d 490.) There may be other possible theories for liability in addition to the association's negligence. One possibility is the association's fraudulent misrepresentation with regard to the safety of its common areas. Another possibility is breach of contract when the plaintiff was a member of the association and the association failed to comply with maintenance of safety provision in the development's declaration or bylaws. (See e.g., Murphy v. Yacht Cove Homeowners Ass'n (S.C. 1986) 345 S.E.2d 709.)
The Individual Director's Duty of Care
A corporate officer or director, like any other person, owes a duty to refrain from injuring others. (Frances T. v. Village Green Owners Assn., supra, 42 Cal.3d at p. 505; PMC, Inc. v. Kadisha (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 1368, 1381.)
Consequently, directors are jointly liable with the corporation and may be joined as defendants if they personally directed or participated in the tortious conduct. (United States Liab. Ins. Co. v. Haidinger-Hayes, Inc. (1970) 1 Cal.3d 586, 595; Dwyer v. Lanan & Snow Lbr. Co., (1956) 141 Cal.App.2d 838, 841.) However, California has adopted the rule that while a condominium association may be liable for its negligence, a greater degree of fault is necessary to hold unpaid individual condominium board members liable for their actions on behalf of condominium associations.
]]>Cramer alleged that the height restrictions were vague, ambiguous, or otherwise unenforceable; alternatively, he argued that Clearlake Rivera was estopped (a legal term meaning: to halt, bar or prevent) from enforcing the Association’s Governing Documents because it had either waived them as to Cramer or misled him to his detriment during the construction process.
At trial, it was reported that the facts were essentially undisputed, that the Cramer home was more than nine (9) feet higher than permitted under the Association’s Governing Documents. It was also undisputed that it would cost many hundreds of thousands of dollars to lower the height of the home and abate the violation.
The court ruled in favor of the Association and ruled that Cramer knowingly violated the height restrictions and that the violation must be abated irrespective of the costs involved.
When an association comes to realize that a homeowner is constructing or modifying their home in violation of the association’s governing documents, this case shows that it is important that the association take immediate action. First, community associations should monitor work being done by homeowners to ensure that it is in compliance with the governing documents. When it is determined, as in this case, that the home may be too high, the homeowner should be immediately notified of the alleged violation and requested to halt construction so that measurements or other investigation can be undertaken.
If the homeowner refuses to stop construction, then it would be better for the association to take immediate legal action rather than waiting until the house is completed. While the judge in the Clearlake Rivera case made the appropriate ruling, not all judges will exercise the same power or authority. Further, it may not be so easy to establish that the homeowner knowingly violated the association’s governing documents (which apparently was a consideration for the judge in the Clearlake Rivera case).
Stopping a homeowner from moving forward with their construction before it has been completed will typically achieve the appropriate result. An investigation can be undertaken, and if the home is in violation of the association’s governing documents, the homeowner will be prohibited from proceeding further with the construction until the home is modified.
]]>1365.1(b) …An owner may, but is not obligated to, pay under protest any disputed charge or sum levied by the association, including but not limited to, an assessment, fine, penalty, late fee, collection cost, or monetary penalty imposed as a disciplinary measure, and by so doing, specifically reserves the right to contest the disputed charge or sum in court or otherwise…
This new law does not significantly change prior law or practice. If a dispute exists between a homeowner and their association regarding any levied assessment, and the amount being disputed does not exceed the monetary limits of small claims court ($7,500 for individuals), the homeowner may, but is not obligated to, pay under protest any disputed amount, and all other sums levied (e.g., any late fees, fines, collection costs, etc.). By paying the sum “under protest”, the homeowner is reserving the right to contest the disputed charge in small claims court. In reality, this law was unnecessary as a homeowner could have done this despite the fact that the law did not say so. It is doubtful that many (if any) owners will take advantage of this procedure; only time will tell.
2. SOLAR ENERGY
- California Civil Code § 714
California provides perhaps the most comprehensive set of state laws designed to encourage solar access and prevent restrictions on solar energy systems. These laws address municipal restrictions, residential landscaping, and homeowner association restrictions. California’s solar access laws appear in the state’s Civil, Government, Health and Safety, and Public Resources Codes. California’s Civil Code ensures that solar easements may be created to ensure that proper sunlight is available to those who operate solar energy systems, including passive solar design.
Civil Code § 714 currently provides that restrictions contained in any deed, contract, security instrument or other instrument regarding real property that effectively prohibit or restrict the installation or use of a solar energy system are void and unenforceable, except as specified in the Civil Code. Whenever an association requires approval for the installation or use of a solar energy system, the application for approval must be processed and approved in the same manner as an application for architectural modifications. Applications for solar energy systems must not be willfully avoided or delayed, as failure to comply can result in civil penalties up to $1,000.00.
Effective January 1, 2009, Civil Code section 714 is amended to specifically include restrictions contained in the “governing documents” of an association, as defined in Civil Code section 1351. This means that if an association’s CC&Rs, architectural guidelines, rules and regulations or other documents governing the operation of the association, contain a provision restricting or banning the installation of solar energy systems, the provision will be deemed void and unenforceable. Additionally, applications for approval of architectural modifications regarding solar energy systems that are not denied in writing within 60 days from the date of receipt of the application shall be deemed approved, unless that delay is the result of a reasonable request for additional information.
RealtyTrac® (realtytrac.com), the leading online marketplace for foreclosure properties, released its 2008 U.S. Foreclosure Market Report™, which shows a total of 3,157,806 foreclosure filings — default notices, auction sale notices and bank repossessions — were reported on 2,330,483 U.S. properties during the year, an 81 percent increase in total properties from 2007 and a 225 percent increase in total properties from 2006. The report also shows that 1.84 percent of all U.S. housing units (one in 54) received at least one foreclosure filing during the year, up from 1.03 percent in 2007.
Foreclosure filings were reported on 303,410 U.S. properties in December, up 17 percent from the previous month and up nearly 41 percent from December 2007. Despite the spike in December, foreclosure activity for the fourth quarter was down nearly 4 percent from the previous quarter but still up nearly 40 percent from the fourth quarter of 2007.
Nevada is ranked #1 in foreclosure filings per household and California is now ranked #4 on a per household rate.
James J. Saccacio, chief executive officer of RealtyTrac, had the following to say regarding December foreclosure activity: “State legislation that slowed down the onset of new foreclosure activity clearly had an effect on fourth quarter numbers overall, but that effect appears to have worn off by December. The big jump in December foreclosure activity was somewhat surprising given the moratoria enacted by both Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, along with programs from some of the major lenders and loan servicers aimed at delaying foreclosure actions against distressed homeowners. Clearly the foreclosure prevention programs implemented to-date have not had any real success in slowing down this foreclosure tsunami. And the recent California law, much like its predecessors in Massachusetts and Maryland, appears to have done little more than delay the inevitable foreclosure proceedings for thousands of homeowners.”
RealtyTrac believes the foreclosure numbers will go higher due to the 7% of loans that are now delinquent (per the Mortgage Bankers Association as of November) and due to the fact that more than half of the homeowners who received a loan modification in the first half of 2008 are already delinquent on their loans (per the U.S. Office of Thrift Supervision). In addition to the above reasons, more than 500,000 jobs have been lost over November and December.
Click here for more of the article and charts showing U.S. Foreclosure Market Data by state and to see how the top 100 Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) are fairing with foreclosures (for 2008).
This information means that California Community Associations should anticipate another year of delinquent owners abandoning their property with associations and the other members having to absorb this uncollectible bad debt.
]]>This new law has created a lot of controversy as many California community associations debate whether compliance is required or not, as this is a federal and not state law. Perhaps the real issues here are the potential risk of injury to children and others that use the pool or spa and potential exposure to the Association. As this new law impacts community associations, it is a big issue. It was the subject of a January 20, 2009 article in the Wall Street Journal. It has been reported that some boards of directors at community associations are delaying the appropriate retrofits because they believe that no one is really going to penalize their association for not taking the appropriate action. While it is true that no governmental authorities are (at least as of going to cite or penalize an association for not complying with the new law, and while it is likely that most associations' insurance carriers will defend and indemnify associations from injury claims, those insurance carriers will not indemnify the association or the individual board members if they are sued for intentional wrongdoing (knowing of the danger and the new law and intentionally deciding not to take action). As the Wall Street Journal article points out (quoting an official with State Farm insurance): (community associations that keep their pools open and do not retrofit) "will probably have a more difficult time proving they are not liable."
Our advice: retrofit as soon as possible and in the meantime, either close (empty?) the pool. It may be appropriate to post notices and disclose the issue and potential danger to the owners and residents. And just so we are clear, posting notices and disclosing the situation may not necessarily insulate the board or the association for potential liability if the pool remains open. Be careful out there!
]]>On December 4, 2008, Sandra Gottlieb (and other members of her panel) was awarded the coveted Speaker of the Year Honors by the Sacramento Chapter of Community Associations Institute (CAI) for her role in a panel program “Managing Foreclosures”.
This is what the Sacramento Chapter had to say about Sandra Gottlieb (the panel) and this award:
With over 105 in attendance, the Managing Foreclosures luncheon drew the largest attendance of the year. Thank you to Sandra, Susan (Oliver) and Rolf (Crocker) for your dedication to the continued education for this Chapter.
They went on to say the following regarding Sandra Gottlieb:
Sandra is truly a dynamic speaker. Sandra, as well as the panel, turned a difficult subject into a valuable and informative seminar. Her knowledge and expertise in the industry is without measure. Her insight, experience and personality reflect her dedication to CAI and the HOA industry. Sandra really knows what it takes to survive in this ever-changing industry.
]]>