January 25, 2012

Therapy Playhouse Creates Controversy at HOA

Blog posting by SwedelsonGottlieb Senior Partner David Swedelson, Condo Lawyer and HOA Attorney

We have had to deal with our share of unauthorized playhouses in the past. And we have dealt with therapy pets in the past. But a therapy playhouse? Really!? As reported in Community Association Institute’s FastTracks email newsletter, a Lexington, Kentucky family’s legal battle with their homeowner’s association over the right to keep their disabled son’s “therapy playhouse” which was not approved by the association has “caused quite the stir, and is heating up as Kentucky’s legislature and a non-profit advocacy group get involved with the dispute.”

playhouse.jpg

Continue reading "Therapy Playhouse Creates Controversy at HOA" »

November 9, 2011

Confidentiality Agreements; Are They Enforceable?

By David C. Swedelson, Senior Partner SwedelsonGottlieb, Condo Lawyer and HOA Attorney

We are often asked to include confidentiality clauses in settlement agreements with owners, as the board often wants to avoid other owners hearing that the association settled. The concern is that these other owners will think it is OK to violate the CC&Rs or Rules, as they will ask for the same “sweetheart” deal. We do not want them to think this way. We do not want them to know about the settlement with their neighbor.

Sometimes, we have these clauses in agreements with developers or contractors or even former association employees who want to keep the terms of the settlement confidential.

The question whether and to what extent settlements can be kept quiet through the use of a confidentiality agreement is difficult to answer. Just ask Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain, who currently faces allegations that women formerly employed with the National Restaurant Association received financial settlements in disputes over alleged sexual harassment by Cain, the former head of the National Restaurant Association.

Continue reading "Confidentiality Agreements; Are They Enforceable?" »

October 4, 2011

Attorney Owner Wins Condo Association Wastebasket War, Uses $201K Check to Pay Off Mortgage

Blog posting by David C. Swedelson, Condo lawyer and HOA attorney; Senior Partner SwedelsonGottlieb

Amazing story out of Florida involving an attorney/owner of a condominium who asked her condo association to place a trash receptacle in the mail room so she could have a convenient place to dispose of her junk mail. When her association declined the request because of a concern about having to maintain that trash receptacle (as owners may put more than junk mail in the trash), the owner decided that she would just dump her mail on the floor. This is a true story; you can’t make this stuff up.

Continue reading "Attorney Owner Wins Condo Association Wastebasket War, Uses $201K Check to Pay Off Mortgage" »

September 10, 2011

Age-Restricted HOA Doesn't Want Young Guests Visiting

Blog posting by David Swedelson, California Condo lawyer and HOA attorney; Partner SwedelsonGottlieb

Community Associations Institute's Fast Tracks News Bulletin reports on a Fort Myers, Fla. age-restricted homeowners association that is telling an owner that that he does not have the right to have guests who are younger than 55 visit his home while he is away.

Continue reading "Age-Restricted HOA Doesn't Want Young Guests Visiting " »

September 1, 2011

Accommodating Medical Marijuana Users Does Not Mean They Can Cause A Nuisance To Other Condo or HOA Association Residents

By David C. Swedelson and Sandra L. Gottlieb, Partners, SwedelsonGottlieb, Condo Attorneys and HOA Lawyers

marijuana.jpg We have been receiving a number of calls lately from board members and community association managers asking what they can or should do about complaints from residents about marijuana smoke that is wafting into their units or homes. Many of you may be wondering why this is an issue and questioning why anyone would complain. We won’t go there. We are hearing that some of these marijuana users are saying that the association cannot stop them from smoking their medical marijuana, as they have their doctor's recommendation and it is permitted by state law. So, must California community associations accommodate medical marijuana use by residents even when it creates a nuisance for other owners/residents? We thought that the answer was pretty clear that even if a resident is legally using medical marijuana, their use cannot cause or create a nuisance which interferes with another resident's quiet enjoyment of their unit or home. Apparently this is not so clear, as we have been told that some attorneys are telling their condo association clients that they can do nothing about marijuana use by a resident who possesses a doctor's recommendation. Seriously?! We do not agree. And we have written an article on the issue. Follow this link for our full article on this subject.

July 31, 2011

Governor Signs Senate Bill 209 Dealing WIth Electric Charging Stations

Posted by David C. Swedelson,
Partner, SwedelsonGottlieb; Community Association Legal Expert

With the proliferation of electric vehicles comes a new law that limits and restricts California community associations' ability to prohibit an owner from installing their own electric charging station. On July 25, Governor Brown signed Senate Bill 209, which adds new Civil Code Section 1353.9. The new law takes effect January 1, 2012.

New Civil Code Section 1353.9 will prohibit California condominium and other community associations from unreasonably restricting the installation of electric vehicle charging stations. Homeowners who place charging stations in the common areas will be responsible for costs associated with maintaining and repairing the station, as well as costs for damage to common areas and adjacent units resulting from installation and maintenance of the station. The new law will impose other responsibilities on the homeowner, including maintaining a liability insurance coverage of $1,000,000 that names the association as an additional insured.

Unfortunately, the new law allows individual owners to use or occupy common areas, contrary to existing statutes and case law. In his signing message, Governor Brown stated that the author of the bill plans to introduce legislation that protects the right of common interest developments to establish reasonable rules for any use of common areas for charging stations. Governor Brown recognized this issue in his signing message:

Continue reading "Governor Signs Senate Bill 209 Dealing WIth Electric Charging Stations" »

July 25, 2011

THE "HANDSHAKE" CLOSE Or How To Get The Owner To Take The Deal

The following is excerpted and edited by David Swedelson from an article prepared by Jan Frankel Schau Mediator/Arbitrator/Attorney. Jan was an associate at SwedelsonGottlieb several years ago.

How many times have you been in a meeting with the board and a homeowner regarding the owner's violation of the rules, CC&Rs or addressing damage they have caused to the common area? Many, I bet. And how many times have you cringed because neither the board nor the owner could get to closure on a deal, a settlement of the dispute. Everyone danced around the issues, but no one knew how to close a deal. Many people educated in negotiation tactics or skills have some tools they use to make a deal. Jan Schau analogizes to the TV show, “Pawn Stars.”

She says that she hesitates to admit it, but she has learned a thing or two about negotiation from the TV show, "Pawn Stars". She goes on to state that in this show (which I myself have enjoyed viewing), the owners of a Las Vegas Pawn Shop negotiate face to face to purchase used and unwanted "treasures" that have an unknown or uncertain value. Invariably, the "final offer" is accompanied by a smile, an extended hand and an expectation that the seller will accept that offer, even though it doesn't meet his last demand. The owners of the pawn shop are adept at making every seller feel great about selling their junk/treasures and getting a great deal in exchange.

Here's how it works in the context of a board and owner at a community association:

Continue reading "THE "HANDSHAKE" CLOSE Or How To Get The Owner To Take The Deal" »

July 5, 2011

The Why and How of Amending and Restating Association Governing Documents

Is your association facing conflict because your governing documents have provisions which are in conflict with the Civil Code? Is the board and management having debates with homeowners over ambiguous provisions? Maybe your association needs to consider a restatement, a complete rewriting of your association's CC&Rs and bylaws. This was the subject of a recent article written by SwedelsonGottlieb associate Alex Noland that was published in the CACM's Law Journal.

In his article, Alex addresses why community associations should consider restating their governing documents and the procedure for obtaining owner approval. He provides some practical advice on how to get the owners to vote on the proposed amendments and lender approval, if necessary. Alex's article is based on his and the firms extensive experience having amended and restated CC&Rs and bylaws for hundreds of California community associations through the firm's Amend program. Follow this link to read Alex's article, and if you want more information regarding the Amend program, contact Alex Noland at an@sghoalaw.com or Mark Petrie at mark@sghoalaw.com. Or call them at 800.372.2207.

June 13, 2011

Homeowner Uses Billboards, Website to Defend Solar Panels

By David Swedelson, Senior Partner, SwedelsonGottlieb

As reported in several publications, including this article from MSNBC, Timothy Adams, a member of a homeowners association in Omaha, Nebraska, has taken some unusual steps to engender support for his fight against his homeowners association as he battles to keep solar panels installed on his home.

According to the MSNBC article, homeowner Adams is being sued by South Shore Heights Homeowners Association after he refused to take down the solar panels he had installed on his roof. While we have seen owners publicize their positions in letters in an effort to garner fellow owner support for their positions, Adams is spending a lot of money (and vows to spend even more) trying to generate support for his cause by putting up billboards, launching a webpage, sending letters to neighbors and utilizing social media.

OmahaBillboardSolar.jpg

Continue reading "Homeowner Uses Billboards, Website to Defend Solar Panels" »

June 9, 2011

What Do You Mean I Cannot Hang My Banner or Sign On My Garage Door (or Window, or...)!

SwedelsonGottlieb, Condo Lawyers and HOA Attorneys

You may not be aware, but 2011 has been a historical year for California hockey, as California’s three NHL teams, the San Jose Sharks, LA Kings, and the Anaheim Ducks, all made the playoffs for the first time together. Or perhaps you were aware of this incredible feat due to the multiple proud fan displays, signs, and banners gracing the homes in your community.

But what would this momentous occasion have to do with HOA law? I am so glad you asked.

In Florida, some homeowners associations had their hands full this year as the Tampa Bay Lightning, who also made the NHL Stanley Cup playoffs, sent banners, flags and lawn signs to its devoted fans for display. Alas, as this news story reports, some Tampa HOA members who displayed such signs on their property were met with opposition by their association. Read the story as to how the ingenious owner got around the association’s objections.

Continue reading "What Do You Mean I Cannot Hang My Banner or Sign On My Garage Door (or Window, or...)!" »

May 26, 2011

Homeowners Pay Bridgeport Attorney’s Fee Award of $147,375.65

By David C. Swedelson, Senior Partner and Joan Lewis-Heard, Senior Associate at SwedelsonGottlieb

It is a good day for the Bridgeport Community Association, a SwedelsonGottlieb client. Today escrow closed and this association was paid the sum of $147,375.65 for the attorney’s fees and costs the Association incurred to obtain the owners and their tenant’s compliance with the CC&Rs. For those of you that think that it cannot be done, read on. The Board and Management at this planned development association located in Valencia, California persevered and took the case through the trial court and appeal and recovered $147,375.65. And they did this because it was the right thing to do, despite all of the time, effort and money it cost the Association.

Continue reading "Homeowners Pay Bridgeport Attorney’s Fee Award of $147,375.65 " »

May 23, 2011

SwedelsonGottlieb Leads the Way in Rules To Address Hoarding

By Sandra L. Gottlieb, Senior Partner, SwedelsonGottlieb

Our firm's work with United Laguna Hills Mutual, a large master community association, is attracting some attention. Follow this link to an article from the Orange County Register. SwedelsonGottlieb assisted the association in crafting a new rule to deal with this association's serious hoarding problem. Among other things, the new rule defines when the line is crossed from harmless clutter to a hoarding problem that creates a fire and/or health hazard that must be dealt with. The association's efforts to address hoarding were also highlighted in a recent issue of Community Association Institute's Common Ground magazine.

If you are experiencing difficulty enforcing your governing documents when it comes to hoarding, contact us at 800.372.2207. Let us evaluate your hoarding issues and let you know the association’s options for dealing with this issue.

Sandra Gottlieb can be contacted via email: slg@sghoalaw.com

May 5, 2011

Lawsuit: Sheriff's Deputy Homeowner Unleashed Chinch Bugs Destroying Neighbor's Lawn

Blog posting by David Swedelson, Senior Partner, SwedelsonGottlieb

As community association attorneys, we are often asked to assist boards and management in dealing with disputes between homeowners. We have seen disputes over view obstructions, dog waste or barking, noise issues from hard surface flooring or too many parties. Usually, we are asked to referee what usually amounts to a war of words. Sometimes, tempers flare and one neighbor may take what they think is justice into their own hands. But infecting their neighbor's yard with insects is a new one. That's what one owner in Florida is accused of doing.

In a story reported by the Palm Beach Post, a Palm Beach County sheriff's deputy is being accused of using his training to thwart agro-terrorism to destroy his neighbor's yard with chinch bugs. The bug invasion, which destroyed the nearly one-acre yard in The Acreage, is one of numerous tactics Detective Terrance Senecal has used to harass his neighbors, according to a lawsuit filed this week in Palm Beach County Circuit Court. The Acreage sounds like the name of a planned development; wonder what the homeowners association is doing about this situation?

May 3, 2011

Dog Waste a "Growing" Issue

By David Swedelson, Senior Partner, SwedelsonGottlieb

There is an old saying that the three big “issues” at community associations are people, pets and parking. Some may disagree, but the fact is that pets are often an issue. And when it comes to pets, and specifically dogs, dog poop or waste is often at the top of the list. We often get calls or e-mails from managers or board members asking our advice on how to deal with residents who fail to pick up after their dogs or complaints regarding same. This is not something they teach in law school.

Recently, a disgruntled owner at one association we represent was so unhappy about the dog poop allegedly being left on the common area grass in front of her condominium unit that she took the poop and wiped it all over an association monument sign (we have no idea what she used as the scraping implement; we are hoping it wasn't her hands).

Continue reading "Dog Waste a "Growing" Issue" »

April 16, 2011

Community Association Rule Enforcement; Not An Easy Task, But It Needs to Be Done

By David C. Swedelson, Partner, Swedelson & Gottlieb
This article was prepared for a recent program that David spoke at dealing with rule enforcement.

There is no disputing the fact that serving on the board at any community association is time consuming and can often become frustrating. You have a multitude of issues competing for your attention — whether it's adopting the budget, monitoring performance and renewing service contracts, insurance renewals, supervision/hiring and retention of employees or collecting delinquent assessments. In addition to running the association’s business, board members are also faced with the task of enforcing rules and regulations.

Continue reading "Community Association Rule Enforcement; Not An Easy Task, But It Needs to Be Done" »

April 11, 2011

Is a Kid’s Lemonade Stand a Prohibited Commercial Activity?

Post by David Swedelson, Partner, Swedelson & Gottlieb

We are often asked to assist California community associations dealing with unauthorized homeowner commercial activities when prohibited by the association’s governing documents. Usually, the issue is whether the commercial activity will or is impairing the residential character of the community.

So, for example, we have been called upon to deal with a hair stylist, an employment headhunter, a psychologist, and other service-oriented businesses that had a number of clients and/or employees coming into a gated community or locked building. Once, we dealt with a refrigerator repair service where customers were coming into the association to drop off or pick up their refrigerator. Another time, it was an auto repair business being run out of a garage. And of course, lately we have been dealing with more then one marijuana growing facility. You get the picture.

But a lemonade stand? Heck, I remember having one of these in front of my house growing up, but I did not live in a community association, at least not then.

But consider the community in Palm Beach County, Florida that forced the closure of a lemonade stand that was being operated by neighborhood children. Here is the video of the news story that aired on television:


There is no question that the restrictions in any community association’s CC&Rs are an important part of community association living. Many owners choose to move into a particular association based in part on the restrictions, and they expect their association to enforce them. Owners do not want to see a car repair service, a burger stand or some other purely commercial activity taking place in front of or out of a home in their community of homes or condos, especially when that business will impair the residential character of the community.

But what about a lemonade stand? How about the sale of Girl Scout cookies? Is the lemonade stand really going to set a precedent? I don’t think so.

What do you think? Did this Florida community go too far?
Send your comments to David Swedelson, dcs@sghoalaw.com

March 15, 2011

Should Delinquent Condo Owners Lose Internet, TV Service?

By David C. Swedelson, Partner, Swedelson & Gottlieb

Community Association Institute’s (CAI) Fast Track News Bulletin reports that Florida condominium association residents who are delinquent on their assessments could run the risk of losing their cable and internet service if a new bill passes.

According to the March 1, 2011, edition of the Orlando Sentinel, the legislation, which would go into effect July 1, 2011, would give condominium associations the right to cut off cable and internet service of residents who are 90 days overdue. In Florida, associations are already allowed to ban delinquent residents from common amenities such as pools, gyms and the like, and the bill would have cable and internet counted as common amenities as well. While the list of what’s considered common amenities seems to keep growing, this proposal makes it clear that associations will not have the power to shut off residents' water or electricity.

Continue reading "Should Delinquent Condo Owners Lose Internet, TV Service?" »

March 15, 2011

Locking in for a Lower Price: Long-Term Contracts

By Sandra Gottlieb, Esq.

Understandably, service providers such as cable or satellite dish companies will regularly seek long-term contracts of five years or more with homeowner associations. They explain that this is because their up front costs related to getting their systems set up within the association are significant, and they want to be reasonably sure that they can earn a profit.

Long-term contracts can provide potential cost savings to many homeowner associations, and a proper contract prepared by an attorney experienced in common interest development law can ensure that the association gets what it pays for. However, some boards of directors are unaware of provisions in their governing documents that may limit the board’s ability to enter into long-term contracts. Sometimes, CC&Rs or Bylaws will not allow the board to enter into any contracts with a term in excess of a certain number of years (usually one year) without the vote and approval of the members (usually a majority of the voting power). Some more recent CC&Rs or bylaws provide for certain exceptions for laundry room leases or contracts, cable television or telecommunication services.

Because contracting with common interest developments (condominiums, planned developments and stock cooperatives) is a regular practice with major telecommunications providers, they are aware that many governing documents will contain these kinds of provisions, and they should perform due diligence by reviewing governing documents prior to contracting with an association. However, this doesn’t always happen. If a provider fails to review the CC&Rs and the board is unaware of their restrictive CC&R provisions regarding long-term contracts, the stage is set for entering into a contract without the proper authority to do so. As you can imagine, this can result in quite a legal mess that must be cleaned up, and it places the members’ access to the provider’s services at risk.

If your association is considering entering into a long-term contract, let the attorneys at Swedelson & Gottlieb assist you to ensure the association is properly protected. Contact us at 310-207-2207 today.

March 11, 2011

NRA Shoots Down Homeowner Association Gun Ban Plan

From Community Association Management Insider

A community in El Dorado County, California has historically allowed some sport shooting. However, when one board member wanted to change that, he started the process to change the governing documents to completely ban the discharge of firearms and air-guns and eliminate all target and other shooting throughout the gated equestrian community.

One member of the community, who is also a National Rifle Association (NRA) member, brought this issue to the attention of the NRA’s California attorneys. And they assisted him and other neighbors in defeating the attempt to do away with shooting in the community.

A group of 15 members attended the Board of Directors meeting to speak against the proposed changes to the governing documents. At the meeting they pointed out the many flaws in the proposed revisions, including that the revisions would inappropriately ban the discharge of BB guns, airguns, bows, and nailguns, because these devices discharge projectiles by means of compressed air or springs.

The members also pointed out to the Board of Directors that the proper procedure to implement a change to the governing documents had not been followed. Under the bylaws, proper procedure for amending the governing documents calls for the association's Revision Committee to first consider a proposal to revise the documents, then recommend items for change to the Board only if the committee finds the suggested change appropriate.

Finally, the member informed the Board of Directors that he had consulted with attorneys for the NRA and that if they wanted to push the revisions, the NRA was prepared to back him and the rest of the supporting homeowners all the way.

Acknowledging the NRA’s involvement, and recognizing their mistake, the Board of Directors referred the proposal back to the Revision Committee to make a recommendation for the proposed changes if the committee felt it was necessary. Based on the input from the protesting members, the Revision Committee found no reason to revise the current version of governing documents, so the proposed change was defeated.

This post by David Swedelson dcs@sghoalaw.com Comments?

March 3, 2011

Starlight Ridge South Homeowners Association v. Hunter-Bloor; Association Maintenance Easements; How Far Does The Association’s Maintenance and Repair Responsibility Actually Go?

By David C. Swedelson, Esq.

Many planned development community associations have built into their CC&Rs the obligation of the association to maintain property owned by some and often not all of the owners. Sometimes, they are called “Association Maintenance Areas” or “Association Easement Areas". Sometimes, there is no special name for the area, but the association's CC&Rs specify that the association will maintain a slope area or landscape area that benefits the association or the owners, typically for aesthetic reasons. And sometimes, disputes erupt over just how far the association’s maintenance responsibilities extend.

Continue reading "Starlight Ridge South Homeowners Association v. Hunter-Bloor; Association Maintenance Easements; How Far Does The Association’s Maintenance and Repair Responsibility Actually Go?" »

February 18, 2011

Is Annual Certification at Age-Restricted Communities Really Necessary?

By Sandra L. Gottlieb, Esq.

Our 55 and older age-restricted communities sometimes ask whether they are required to survey and certify that they comply with the 55 and older qualification standards (if you live in or are on the board of an age-restricted community, you likely know what this means), seeing as they have already surveyed and certified residents in units. They do not want to have to recheck and recheck, year after year, inasmuch as the owners are not getting any younger over time.

For those that are wondering what the heck we are talking about, the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 (the “Act”) provides an exception for communities for older persons (55 and older), which allows restrictive occupancy without violating the Act by discriminating against families with children or against persons that are 54 years of age or younger. The FHA has been amended by the Housing for Older Persons Act of 1995 (“HOPA”). HOPA sets forth standards, which allows, if followed, the 55 and older communities to satisfy the exemption by completing the age restriction requirements.

55 and older communities must survey their residents every two years to ensure the 80% threshold requirement is met (units must be occupied by at least one person 55 and older). Failure to complete and confirm the age status of each resident in the community could, if the threshold fails, impair the ongoing exemption for the 55 and over housing exemption (meaning that they would lose the right to be an age-restricted community). Make certain that your survey questions are compliant with the law. Follow this link to view the requirements that should be followed, which are set forth at page 16327 in the first full paragraph in the third column.

If you have any questions concerning compliance, please do not hesitate to contact Swedelson & Gottlieb at 310-207-2207 and speak to one of our attorneys, or email us at slg@sghoalaw.com.

January 5, 2011

Make 2011 a Great Year by Amending or Restating Your CC&Rs and Bylaws

You know you’ve been meaning to get around to it for a long time now. Your manager has probably been nudging the board as well, hoping that maybe this year will be the year your association decides to get rid of those outdated CC&R and Bylaw provisions, making everyone’s job a lot easier.

Amending your governing documents does not have to be a painful process. Some boards of directors will not even consider amendment, dismissing it out of hand as too time-consuming or too expensive with little chance for success. But if the board truly commits to the process and engages in an active marketing campaign to support the approval of the amendment by the required secret ballot vote, we find that our association clients are able to get some great amendments passed by their members, quickly and effectively.

What’s bothering you?

o Delinquent owners are not paying assessments, but they are collecting rent from tenants. Let Swedelson & Gottlieb prepare an “Assignment of Rents” provision for your CC&Rs, allowing the association to demand rent directly from the delinquent owner’s tenant.

o Too many leased units at the association. Let Swedelson & Gottlieb prepare a rental restriction for your CC&Rs, restricting the ability of a new owner to lease for a year or two or restricting leased units to a certain percentage of all units (many of our clients find 25% to be reasonable). This will help to protect the resident-owner character of your association.

o Little or no director qualifications exist. Let Swedelson & Gottlieb prepare an amendment to your Bylaws setting forth reasonable director qualifications such as being a member of the association, being current in payment of assessments, and not being involved in adverse litigation with the association.

o Not sure who is responsible to repair or replace some parts of the development. Let Swedelson & Gottlieb prepare amendments to your CC&Rs clarifying maintenance responsibilities.

o That one incredibly confusing provision that causes fights all the time. You know the one. Let’s get rid of it and replace it with something clear and concise.

Do you have many issues that arise because of governing documents that are out of whack with current state statute and best practices for homeowner associations? You may wish to consider a full restatement of your CC&Rs and Bylaws through our Amend!® program. Actually, most associations will benefit greatly from restatement every fifteen years or so. We offer reasonable flat fees for several options of service.

Let Swedelson & Gottlieb know how we can help. Contact Alex Noland, Esq. or legal assistant Mark Petrie by email or at 310-207-2207 today.

November 19, 2010

What are Homeowners’ Rights Regarding Service, Companion & Therapy Dogs?

By W. Alexander Noland, Esq., Swedelson & Gottlieb 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?" »

October 22, 2010

How to Deal With A Request for Authorization to Install Solar Panels

By Stephanie Rohde, Swedelson & Gottlieb Associate and David Swedelson, Swedelson & Gottlieb Partner

These days, going “green” is all the rage. So, it is no surprise that lately we are getting more and more inquiries from boards wondering how they should respond when homeowners request authorization to install solar panels. If the owner wants to install the solar panels on the common area, such as the roof of a condominium building, the answer is easy: “NO.” Owners do not have the right to install any type of modification on the common area, and solar panels are no exception.

However, it is a different story when owners request permission to install the solar panels on their own roof. As you might suspect, the answer is more complicated. Regardless of what the association’s governing documents may say, Civil Code Sections 714 and 714.1 limit the ability of a homeowners association to restrict the installation of solar panels within a separate interest. Civil Code Section 714 says, among other things, that a community association cannot enact a covenant, restriction or condition which limits or restricts an owner’s ability to install a solar energy system. In fact, any such covenant, restriction or condition is considered “void and unenforceable”. If homeowners want to install solar panels on their separate interest (meaning on their own home or yard), they must submit an architectural application as would be required for any other exterior improvement or modification. However, because of the limitations of the Civil Code, the architectural committee (or board) cannot deny the application for solar panels simply because solar panels do not fit in with the aesthetics of the development.

Continue reading "How to Deal With A Request for Authorization to Install Solar Panels" »

September 28, 2010

Community Associations May be Obligated to Accommodate a Disabled Resident, But that Does Not Mean that the Accommodation Can Negatively Impact Other Residents

The Los Angeles Times publishes a column entitled Rent Watch. Recently, the column addressed a situation where a tenant maintained in that tenants apartment a seeing eye dog that barked at night bothering the neighbor(s). The answer applies to community associations as well as rental units. Follow this link to read the selected Q&A.

As that column correctly indicates, while community associations (which are considered housing providers for the purpose of fair housing/accommodation matters) are required to reasonably accommodate disabled residents, the accommodation provided to a disabled individual must be “reasonable”. Quoting from the article, “If the dog’s behavior is an unreasonable nuisance to other [residents], the [association] is not obligated to ignore that.”

It may be necessary to contact the resident directly to advise them that while they are able to have their dog in their unit (which may violate the association’s governing documents) their dog is creating a nuisance and they have to deal with that and the dog will have to leave. Otherwise, their request to maintain their dog in their unit is not reasonable so long as it continues to bark and create a nuisance.

This post was prepared by Swedelson & Gottlieb senior partner David Swedelson. If you have questions or comments, please direct them to David at dcs@sghoalaw.com.

September 24, 2010

The Owner Put a Sukkah Where?

September 22, 2010 marked the beginning of the Jewish holiday of Sukkot. This holiday starts on a different date between late September to late October each year and has agricultural orgins, celebrating the harvest. If it is Sukkot, we can be assured of getting calls asking us what to do about the Sukkahs that some homeowners have erected on their balconies or patios (or in some cases right in the common area). For those of you who don’t know what Sukkot entails, some Jews construct temporary outdoor dwellings, called Sukkahs, where they traditionally eat, sleep, and otherwise spend their time during this seven day holiday. Click here for examples of Sukkahs. The Sukkahs are typically small temporary wooden structures, but can be quite elaborate, incorporating various decorations such as hanging fruit and vegetables.

What do you do if a homeowner puts up a Sukkah on their exclusive use common area, or worse, on the common area that is not theirs to use exclusively, in violation of governing documents that contain prohibitions on exterior modifications without architectural committee approval? Despite our constant admonishments to uniformly and consistently enforce the governing documents, the association’s right to enforce its restrictions has to be weighed against the homeowners’ right to practice their religion.

Continue reading "The Owner Put a Sukkah Where?" »

September 24, 2010

Owners in Zero Lot Line View Protected Communities May Have No Reasonable Expectation of Privacy

An interesting trial court decision was reported in the Daily Journal, a newspaper for attorneys. The article dealt with a the trial judge’s decision in a lawsuit between two owners in a Newport Beach gated zero lot line community regarding a purported landscaping encroachment. A zero lot line refers to a type of home where one boundary wall of the structure is built right on the property line (rather then there being a wall between the two homes with a setback).

Follow this link to read the article/summary.

One neighbor claimed that the other neighbor’s shrubbery that grew along a 2.5 foot wall on their shared property line was interfering with their view. They also sought a declaration from the court that their neighbor would be responsible for future damage to the drainage system that may be caused by their landscaping. The plaintiff owner requested $100,000 in damages and injunctive relief (and a court order requiring that the conditions be eliminated).

Continue reading "Owners in Zero Lot Line View Protected Communities May Have No Reasonable Expectation of Privacy" »

July 19, 2010

Residents Are Not Happy With Their Neighbor's New Green And Purple Paint Color Scheme; Not Much They Can Do About It! If Only They Lived In A Community Association.

I read with interest an article that appeared in the Los Angeles Times addressing a La Crescenta neighborhood's uproar over one owner's neon green paint job. Follow this link to read/download the LA Times article.

One neighbor was quoted as saying that the green paint color was “completely inconsistent with the neighborhood. We have a real concern it's going to lower property values.”

Unfortunately, there are no standards in this area, and it's unlikely that anyone can do anything about the neon green. This would likely not be the case if this home were located in a planned development where paint colors are controlled.

I often hear people complain, especially those who are involved in the community association industry, that they would never live in a condominium or planned development because of all of the restrictions and problems. What they fail to realize is that one of the great benefits of living in a community association is the fact that there are restrictions, such as the choice of paint colors or where you cannot park your trailer or motorhome. Most people can live with those restrictions, and if you can't, you can live in the neighborhood with neon green homes and 40 foot trailers parked on the street in front of your home.

Here is another relevant article on the subject.

pic1.jpg

pic2.jpg

June 10, 2010

Who is Responsible for Heating/Air Conditioning Ducts and Other Common Area Elements? It is Not That Complicated!

One of the more difficult and confusing issues that boards and association management often have to deal with is determining who is responsible for the maintenance and repair of common area plumbing, ventilation and other utility components, especially those that serve only one unit. Even attorneys sometimes get it wrong and believe that merely because the pipe, duct or wiring serves only one unit, the affected owner is responsible for same. Just because a common area component serves or benefits only one unit does not by itself make that component that owner’s repair and/or replacement responsibility.

Continue reading "Who is Responsible for Heating/Air Conditioning Ducts and Other Common Area Elements? It is Not That Complicated!" »

June 10, 2010

Who is Watching Your Pool?

The kids are getting out of school for the summer, and the weather is heating up. This will mean that there will be more residents and their guests utilizing community association swimming pools. Who is watching your pool? Do you have lifeguards or pool monitors? Have you considered the difference? Do you know the difference? Alex Noland, an Associate Attorney at Swedelson & Gottlieb, has written an article on this subject which was recently published in the O.C. View, the bi-monthly publication of the Orange County Chapter of the Community Associations Institute. Follow this link for a copy of the article.

May 28, 2010

California Appellate Court Rules that a Developer Cannot Force HOA to Arbitrate Defect Claims Based on a Provision in the CC&Rs

By Alyssa Klausner, Swedelson & Gottlieb Senior Associate

In the case of Villa Vicenza Homeowners Association V. Nobel Court Development (follow this link to see the entire decision), the developer of a condominium project recorded a Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) which required a homeowners association to arbitrate any construction defect claim the association might have against the developer. The Court ruled that the CC&Rs are not an effective means of obtaining an agreement to arbitrate a homeowners association's construction defect claims against a developer.

The basis of the Court’s decision was that the recorded CC&Rs, standing alone, are not a contract between the developer and the homeowners association, which only came into existence after the CC&Rs were recorded, and therefore there has been no showing the association entered into a binding arbitration agreement.

We have represented several associations that have had to deal with this issue, and we are pleased to have an appellate court decision confirming that such provisions in CC&Rs are not enforceable. If you have any questions regarding how this case impacts your association or about defect cases in general, please contact Alyssa Klausner, Esq. at (310) 207-2207, Ext. 205.

April 13, 2010

"Not by the Hair of my Chinny-Chin-Chin!"

You may remember the three pigs’ response to the wolf when he demanded entry into their homes in the old children’s story.

Unfortunately, we have seen some cases where a few homeowners seem to consider their homeowners association to be a “wolf” and will not cooperate with the association’s reasonable requests to enter their property when necessary in order to perform the association’s duties under the association’s governing documents. Far from being the bad guy in the story, the association often needs to gain entry in order to perform tasks that directly benefit the individual owner, as well as the association in general. Inspection of water leaks, mold testing, sound attenuation testing, and inspection for and/or repair of construction defects are just some examples. Even though the association’s right to do this may be explicitly spelled out in the association’s governing documents, some homeowners refuse to allow the association entry.

In some cases, a lawsuit must be filed, seeking a court order to allow entry. Attorneys’ fees and costs may be awarded to the association, in addition to the cost for a locksmith, which may become a judgment lien against the owner’s property. And all of these costs could have been avoided by the owner simply opening the door!

Most Declarations of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) include a basic “right-of-entry” provision, usually with additional provisions for emergencies. If your association lacks such a provision, propose to amend your CC&Rs accordingly, and save yourself a lot of huffing and puffing.

April 1, 2010

A Highly Unusual Request to Amend CC&Rs - to Allow Only Ferrets!

We recently received an interesting request from a board of directors regarding amending the pet provision in their Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions. Apparently, many members of the association have a distinct love of ferrets. Following is the language we developed for this association...

Continue reading "A Highly Unusual Request to Amend CC&Rs - to Allow Only Ferrets!" »

February 23, 2010

What We Learned at CAI's 31st Annual National Law Seminar in Tucson, Arizona

Despite the wind, rain and cold weather that followed us from Southern California, Swedelson & Gottlieb attorneys David Swedelson, Stephanie Rohde and Alyssa Klausner recently attended the 31st Annual CAI National Law Seminar in Tucson, Arizona. We
have written an article about what we learned from this excellent seminar; follow this link for a copy of the article.

November 5, 2009

What Makes a Rule Reasonable or Unreasonable?

We are often asked by Boards about what is a reasonable rule. The answer is that I know it when I see it. We prepared an article that addresses this very issue. Click here for that article, "What Makes a Rule Reasonable or Unreasonable? I Know It When I See It!" By David C. Swedelson, Senior Partner of Swedelson & Gottlieb.

November 5, 2009

No, You Cannot Adopt a Rule that is More Restrictive than the Provisions of the Association’s CC&Rs

Knowingly or unknowingly, sometimes boards adopt rules which are in conflict or more restrictive than the association’s CC&Rs. For example, they make specific rules regarding prohibitions on the installation of washing machines when the CC&Rs are silent on the matter. Boards sometimes prohibit hard surface flooring when this is likewise not covered by their association’s CC&Rs. We sometimes see rules that limit the number of or size of animals that homeowners are able to maintain when this is likewise not covered by the association’s CC&Rs. Sometimes, these rules end up in litigation, especially when the board tries to enforce same. Often the board of directors will argue that the court must defer to their discretion when they are performing their duties. While usually the courts will defer to the board of directors when it comes to decisions covered by the association’s governing documents, this is not true when the board has exceeded its authority.

Such was the case involving an association in Orange County, California, where the board decided they were not going to make homeowners “trim” their palm trees to eliminate a view obstruction and made a rule regarding this even though the association’s CC&Rs prohibited any view obstructions from landscaping. Firm attorneys David C. Swedelson and Stephanie M. Rohde have prepared an article entitled “Decisions of Boards of Directors Regarding Enforcement of Governing Documents Cannot Usually Be Second Guessed Unless the Decision is More Restrictive than the CC&Rs.” Click here for a PDF copy of this important and timely article.

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.

December 23, 2000

AB 2736 Architectural Review

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. Once enacted, operating rules subject to the requirements of Civil Code § 1357.100 may be reversed by a majority of a quorum of the members if at least 5% or more of the voting power of the association petitions the board for a special meeting for the purpose of reversing an operating rule (distinguished from a common area maintenance or repair policy, for example) within 30 days after the members are notified of the enactment of the rule change. This 30 days period was adopted to allow the homeowners to challenge the rule change, but there is no requirement that the owners be told that they have the right to challenge the proposed rule.

Currently, under Section 1357.120, a rule that governs one or more of the following subjects is subject to the above procedure:

  1. Use of the common area or of an exclusive use common area.
  2. Use of a separate interest, including any aesthetic or architectural standards that govern alteration of a separate interest.
  3. Member discipline, including any schedule of monetary penalties for violation of the governing documents and any procedure for the imposition of penalties.
  4. Any standards for delinquent assessment payment plans.
  5. Any procedures adopted by the association for resolution of assessment disputes.

Beginning January 1, 2005, AB 2376 adds an additional category of rules subject to the above described rule adoption procedure.  Specifically, any procedures for reviewing and approving or disapproving a proposed physical change to a member’s separate interest or to the common area will now be subject to the rule-adoption procedures set forth in Sections 1357.130 and 1357.140 of the Civil Code.

In addition, if an association’s governing documents require that an owner obtain the approval of the association before making a physical change to the owner’s separate interest or to the common area, the association must now satisfy the following requirements in reviewing and approving or disapproving a proposed change.  The requirements are set forth in newly added Civil Code Section 1378.  The minimum requirements that an association must satisfy are as follows:

  1. The association shall provide a fair, reasonable, and expeditious procedure for making its decision.  The procedure shall be included in the association’s governing documents, such as the association’s rules and regulations or CC&Rs.  (Remember, pursuant to the amendment to Civil Code Section 1357.120, if this procedure is adopted as an operating rule, the procedure will be subject to Civil Code Section 1357.130 and 1357.140).  The procedure shall provide for prompt deadlines and shall state the maximum time for response to an application or an owner’s request for reconsideration by the board of directors.
  2. A decision on a proposed change shall be made in good faith and may not be unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious.
  3. A decision on a proposed change shall be consistent with any governing provision of law, including, but not limited to, the Fair Employment and Housing Act, commencing with Section 12900, of Division 3 of Title 2 of the California Government Code.
  4. The decision on a proposed change shall be in writing.  If an application for a proposed change is disapproved, the written decision must include both an explanation of why the proposed change is disapproved and a description of the procedure for reconsideration of the decision by the board.
  5. If a proposed change is disapproved, the applicant is entitled to reconsideration by the board of the association that made the decision, at an open board meeting.  Section 1378 provides that  reconsideration of a decision is not required if the decision is made by the board of directors or a body that has the same membership as the board, at a meeting that satisfies the requirements of Civil Code Section 1363.05 (the Common Interest Development Open Meeting Act).  Section 1378 also provides that reconsideration by the board shall not require dispute resolution within the meaning of the new Civil Code Section 1363.820, described below.

New Civil Code Section 1378 is not intended to authorize a physical change that is prohibited by an association’s governing documents or governing law.

Section 1378 also requires that an association provide its members with notice of any requirements for association approval of physical changes to property on an annual basis.  The notice must describe the types of changes that would require the association’s approval and shall include a copy of the procedure used by the association to review and approve or disapprove a proposed change.

AB 2376 also amends Civil Code Section 1373 pertaining to common interest developments that are limited to industrial or commercial uses by zoning or by a declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions.  Section 1373 exempts these types of common interest developments from compliance with certain provisions of the Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act such as the requirement to distribute to the members on an annual basis a pro forma operating budget.  The amendment to Civil Code Section 1373 will exempt common interest developments limited to industrial or commercial uses from compliance with Section 1378, described above. 

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.