June 10, 2009

Homeowner Association is Not Liable for Unforeseeable Injuries Caused to an Owner by a Tenant's Dog

Chee v. Marina Seagate Condominiums, (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 1360, 50 Cal.Rptr.3d 40.

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.

Continue reading "Homeowner Association is Not Liable for Unforeseeable Injuries Caused to an Owner by a Tenant's Dog" »

January 27, 2009

COURT ORDERS HOMEOWNER TO LOWER HEIGHT OF HOME

When an association discovers that an owner has made substantial alterations or modifications to their home that were not approved (often after the work has been done and a neighbor complains), we often hear board members or community association managers suggest that a judge is not going to make the homeowner remove an extensive modification of a home just because that modification violates the Association’s Governing Documents. While that is certainly a consideration that a court must make, we received a report (in the Daily Journal legal newspaper) that one judge did the right thing and ruled in favor of the Association under these circumstances.

Continue reading "COURT ORDERS HOMEOWNER TO LOWER HEIGHT OF HOME" »

October 31, 2008

Political Signs and Community Associations in California

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?

The answer is that pursuant to Civil Code Section 1353.6: The governing documents, including the operating rules,
 may not prohibit posting or displaying of noncommercial signs, 
posters, flags, or banners on or in an owner's separate interest,
except as required for the protection of public health or safety or 
if the posting or display would violate a local, state, or federal 
law.

Follow this link to see the entire code section, including what constitutes a sign.

While there are no court decisions in California on this issue, it is interesting to see what court decisions have come down in other states.

In Kansas, the legislature passed legislation which makes it illegal for neighborhoods to adopt restrictive covenants prohibiting political yard signs. David Hudson, a First Amendment scholar at Vanderbilt University, has done research to cast doubt on the legitimacy of such laws. He states: “The First Amendment generally protects people only from government interference with speech.” Mr Hudson cited a Pennsylvania court ruling which stated that an association did not violate the First Amendment by removing political signs in accordance with the association’s declaration prohibiting the posting of signs at the individual units. The judge included the following statement in the ruling:

The courts of the Commonwealth have vigorously defended the rights which are guaranteed to our citizens by both the Federal and our Commonwealth’s constitutions. One of the fundamental precepts which we recognize, however, is the individual freedom to contractually restrict, or even give up those rights. The homeowners challenging the sign prohibition contractually agreed by the provisions in the Declaration at the time of purchase, thereby relinquishing their freedom of speech concerns regarding placing signs on their property.

Another significant case was decided in New Jersey. In a ruling that could have implications beyond New Jersey, in 2007 the New Jersey Supreme Court upheld the right of homeowners’ associations to restrict the posting of political signs and other forms of constitutionally protected speech, as long as the restrictions are not “unreasonable or oppressive.

In a unanimous decision, the Court ruled:

We conclude that in balancing plaintiffs’ expressional rights against he association’s private property rights, the association’s policies do not violate the free-speech and right-of-assembly clauses of the New Jersey Constitution.

So, what’s the best way to deal with the issue?

We advise that when dealing with any signs, consider the Civil Code as to size, etc. and location, and if the sign is placed in their window or on their property, then it must likely be permitted.

On the other hand, a mannequin dressed to look like a political candidate hanging from a noose (as was the case in West Hollywood until governmental pressure convinced the owner that it should be removed) is not a “sign” that must be permitted.

In the meantime, we urge you all to exercise your right to vote and let your preferences be known in order to fully participate in the electoral process.

May 17, 2000

New Law Requiring Secret Ballots, Election Rules and Regulations Goes Into Effect July 1, 2006—Are You Ready?

On July 1st, 2006, the way community associations have traditionally conducted annual meetings and/or taken votes will be history. This new law, set out in new Civil Code Section 1363.03, will affect how all homeowners associations in California will conduct most of their voting and elections, including the election of directors, a vote by the membership for assessment increases, amendments to the governing documents, and grant of exclusive use common area (subject to the limitations of Civil Code Section 1363.07). This new law was premised on what we believe is the mistaken opinion that association elections and balloting are “fraught with fraud.” The big change is that all voting will be by secret ballot. There is cleanup legislation that has been proposed, which expands the secret ballot process to all association votes. Failure to comply with these new rules could, by court order, set aside the results of an election or vote taken by an association and/or could subject an association to a penalty of five hundred dollars ($500.00) for each violation.

The newly required Election Rules and Regulations (Rules) are considered “operating” rules under the Civil Code, which will require that they first be sent out to the owners for comment. The Rules should set forth the process by which membership meetings are to be conducted, how voting is to occur and who is in charge. No longer may the association’s managing agent (unless your Rules provide otherwise) be in charge of the registration process nor may they assist the inspector(s) of election (“inspector(s)”) with the vote tally. While the number of inspector(s) has not changed (either one (1) or three (3)), the new law requires associations to specify how they are going to select the inspector(s), requires the inspector(s) to be independent third parties which include, but are not limited to, volunteer poll workers with the county registrar of voters, a licensed CPA, or a notary public. Although inspector(s) may be a member of the association, that member cannot be related to a board member, nor a candidate for election to the board of directors, a member related to the candidate, or be a person that is currently employed by or under contract to the association unless expressly authorized by the Rules. The inspector(s) must be selected prior to the vote or election as the inspector(s)’ role and responsibilities have been expanded.

If an association’s governing documents require an annual meeting to elect the board of directors (“board”), you will still be required to follow the Civil Code-mandated process. Cumulative voting and quorum requirements set forth in the governing documents remain controlling. The association or its managing agent will be obligated to provide information to the inspector(s) so that the inspector(s) can determine which members are in good standing and have a right to vote, notify members that they have a right to run for the board, the right to submit a candidacy statement, the right to utilize the association’s media in the same manner that any other candidate is utilizing an association’s media, which includes (by way of example) the association’s website or newsletter, if applicable. The board must be consistent with the procedures as they are to be applied to all members. Further, associations must provide access for all members to the association’s common area meeting space (or spaces) so that the member/candidate can have a forum to discuss their candidacy or anything reasonably related to the election.

The code provides a comprehensive list of inspectors' obligations, which include the designation of a location for the homeowners to mail their secret ballots, determination of the good standing status of the member as referenced above, the counting of the secret ballots (more on that in a moment), the designation of mailing address (referenced above), notification to the homeowners of when the voting will commence and when it will conclude (referred in the code as a polling place, which would make that consistent with municipal elections), request for candidacy statements, etc. Because the legislature apparently believed that community associations were not allowing for secret voting, the underlying process is to secure confidentiality in all votes by homeowners for the elections referenced above.

The Rules must provide procedures that the inspector(s) can utilize at the annual meeting, if applicable. This is important because the association’s managing agent (unless authorized in the Rules) will not be able to provide information and direction to the inspector(s) as to how they should handle any issues or problems that arise.

The secret ballot referenced above requires that associations send to the homeowners (and for the homeowner to return) two (2) envelopes, one that will fit inside the other. The “secret” ballot will go inside the smaller inner envelope. The secret ballot, which requires the homeowner’s vote, may not be signed by the homeowner or have any other documentation on the ballot that would identify the homeowner. That ballot will be placed into the inner envelope, which will be, on its face, designated as the envelope for the secret ballot. That envelope will be placed into another envelope that will be pre-addressed to a location specified by the inspector(s). On the exterior envelope the homeowner, must in their own hand, print and sign his or her name, address, and lot or parcel or unit number that entitles him or her to vote. Owners will likely need some help with this as they likely will not know their parcel number. The homeowner is required to, where referenced, sign their name on that envelope. Although the cleanup legislation referenced above would allow for that information, other than the signature, to be provided not in the homeowner’s own hand, currently that is not the law. Managing agents and boards of directors are rightfully concerned that homeowners will have difficulty understanding that if they do not fill out all of the information, the ballot inside the envelopes will not count towards the election. Not only is the board obligated to prepare the Rules, they should carefully set forth instructions to the homeowner as to how to fill out the envelope.

Counting of the ballots is also going to be an issue. How long will it take to register the members and then count the secret ballots? Will this interfere with the inspector(s) noticing when the polls will close? Members of the association are entitled to watch the counting of the votes. However, no one except the inspector(s), including members of the association, the board of directors or the association’s managing agent, may review or open any secret ballot prior to the time and place where the secret ballots are counted and tabulated. When completed, the inspector(s) are required to provide the board with the results of the election and the association is required to advise the homeowners, in writing, within fifteen (15) days of the election by publicizing the results.

If a member requests a recount and challenges the election results, the association shall make the ballots available for inspection and review by the members or their representatives. The association has an ongoing obligation to preserve the confidentiality of the vote and that includes the recount. Any member may bring a lawsuit against the association in small claims court (within a one-year period from the date of the election or vote) contesting the results. The small claims judge now has the power to void the results of the election upon finding that the election procedures required by law or the rules were not followed. If the member prevails in a lawsuit contesting the vote, under the new law they will be entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs and the Court may impose a penalty of up to $500 for each violation. On the other hand, if the association prevails in that lawsuit, assuming the small claims court judge’s decision to void the results of an election or vote has been appealed to the Superior Court, it shall not be entitled to its attorneys’ fees and costs unless the Court finds that the homeowner’s action was frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation.

While the voting and elections procedures have changed, boards of directors still have an obligation to enforce the governing documents while complying with civil code obligations. The State Legislature has enacted a very complicated new law designed to ensure elections and voting are secret. It remains to be seen how well this new law will work. Good Luck! And if you need help, contact our office!

© Swedelson & Gottlieb

April 16, 2000

Satellite Dish Installation Law At Center Of Dispute

Although the FCC regulations which allow a owner to install a satelite dish on their property has been the law for several years now, it is still widely misunderstood. The attached PDF story from the Ventura County Star shows just how misunderstood this law is. A owner at a condo association cannot, without the associations approval, place a satellite dish on the common area and that is exactly where this disgruntled owner placed his. What do you think?Download ventura_county_star__ventura_010505.pdf

April 3, 2000

Owner of Record

Download owner_of_recordarticlefnl.pdf

February 28, 2000

FCC Bans Exclusivity Contracts


Prepared by Sandra L. Gottlieb, Esq.
Swedelson & Gottlieb

In the mid-90’s, The Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) established rules known as the Over the Air Reception Devices, known by the acronym OTARD, which preempts provisions in many governing documents that require an owner to obtain approval before installing a satellite dish. The public policy part of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (the “Act”) was the vehicle by which the FCC guaranteed that homeowners had reasonable access to new communication technology available to American consumers and provided that such access takes priority over private restrictions based on aesthetics. That said, however, the Act did not require associations to allow access to association common areas, but rather left the decisions concerning associations’ common areas, subject to statutory and governing document requirements, to the boards of directors of those associations. The common area at a condominium association is likely any area outside of the airspace of an owner’s unit or their exclusive use patio or balcony.

Community association boards usually have the discretion to enter into an exclusive cable service contract with a particular telecommunications provider in order to provide that programming to the residents at a volume discount price. Cable providers often insist on exclusivity (meaning that no other providers are permitted to offer programming to residents) prior to committing to make upgrades at an association.

On November 13, 2007, the FCC issued an order banning exclusivity contracts between cable operators (and other multi-channel video programming distributors) and multiple dwelling unit developments.
The definition of multiple dwelling units developments includes condominiums, cooperatives, and communities of single family homes. The order from the FCC has not become a published federal regulation as it is still being considered whether it should apply to direct broadcast satellite services and private cable operators, not using local rights of way. This action by the FCC is consistent with its belief that communication providers (internet, wireless and cable) should be subject to the greatest possible competition in providing their services, and that consumers generally benefit from that competition.

943483_satellite_antenna_dish.jpg

If you have an exclusivity clause in your cable or video programming distribution contract, this ban will not necessarily terminate the contract, but it may make certain (exclusivity) provisions of that agreement unenforceable. The impact of this ban on community associations is not certain at this point. The benefit of an exclusivity provision in the contract is that it sometimes enabled the association to obtain a better rate for the cable/video programming services, installation of fiber optics, cabling, free receivers, etc. Without an exclusivity clause, however, it is likely that any discounts will expire with contract renewals.

We will keep you advised of any new developments about this new FCC order. If your association is under contract with a video programming provider or distributor, you should review the provisions of the contract to determine if there is an exclusivity clause and, if so, what the effect on the contract will be once the FCC order becomes an effective federal rule published in the Code of Federal Regulations. If you require our assistance, please contact our office. In addition, for more information please see CAI's political information web site.