March 6, 2009

Stop Your Complaining//Nitpicking in Paradise?

Click here to read an interesting article from the Wall Street Journal about complaining entitled "From Attitude to Gratitude." We all do it. And we know that homeowners at community associations like to complain a lot. They complain about management. They complain about the board. Heck, sometimes they even complain about the association's legal counsel. They complain about the landscaping, the paint color, the temperature of the pool and the list goes on (and on and on). The attached article talks about owners complaining as "nitpicking in paradise."

Many of us complain we have so many calls or e-mails to deal with; we complain because there is so much work to do. Some board members complain about the homeowners, about all the delinquencies, about the high cost of insurance, etc., and the list goes on.

How about this: instead of complaining, why not say (or feel) how grateful we are for what we have. If you are employed, stop complaining because 10% of Californians are out of work. If you still have some money in the bank or invested in stocks, stop complaining because some people invested their money in Ponzi schemes.

We all need to stop complaining and look at the bright side of things. Please read the article attached - it's humbling.

March 6, 2009

SANDRA L. GOTTLIEB RECEIVES MAY RUSSELL HALL OF FAME AWARD

On Friday, February 27, 2009, the Orange County Chapter of Community Associations Institute (CAI) held its annual awards dinner. We are pleased to announce that our very own Sandra Gottlieb was presented with the Chapter's coveted May Russell Hall of Fame Award.

Each year, the Orange County Chapter of CAI recognizes an outstanding individual who has been instrumental in the success of the Chapter. The Chapter’s most prestigious award is named after May Russell, a former Irvine Company Executive who helped form CAI and was its first president (CAI started in Orange County). Recipients of this Award were first announced in 1988 at the Chapter’s very first awards dinner. The Award is presented to an individual who has proved exemplary leadership and demonstrated the ideals and objectives of CAI through active participation at the local, regional and/or national level.

Congratulations to Sandra Gottlieb!

January 27, 2009

NEW LEGISLATION UPDATE (FOR NEW LAW THAT BECAME EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 2009)

2008 was remarkable for the fact that the California Legislature did not pass much in the way of new legislation impacting or affecting California Community Associations. We are providing a summary of two changes to the California Civil Code regarding fines/assessments and solar energy that became effective as of January 1, 2009.

Continue reading "NEW LEGISLATION UPDATE (FOR NEW LAW THAT BECAME EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 2009)" »

December 18, 2008

SANDRA GOTTLIEB AWARDED SPEAKER OF THE YEAR

SANDRA GOTTLIEB AWARDED SPEAKER OF THE YEAR
BY THE SACRAMENTO CHAPTER OF COMMUNITY ASSOCIATIONS INSTITUTE

On December 4, 2008, Sandra Gottlieb (and other members of her panel) was awarded the coveted Speaker of the Year Honors by the Sacramento Chapter of Community Associations Institute (CAI) for her role in a panel program “Managing Foreclosures”.

This is what the Sacramento Chapter had to say about Sandra Gottlieb (the panel) and this award:

With over 105 in attendance, the Managing Foreclosures luncheon drew the largest attendance of the year. Thank you to Sandra, Susan (Oliver) and Rolf (Crocker) for your dedication to the continued education for this Chapter.

They went on to say the following regarding Sandra Gottlieb:

Sandra is truly a dynamic speaker. Sandra, as well as the panel, turned a difficult subject into a valuable and informative seminar. Her knowledge and expertise in the industry is without measure. Her insight, experience and personality reflect her dedication to CAI and the HOA industry. Sandra really knows what it takes to survive in this ever-changing industry.

December 16, 2008

Drain Rule May Close Thousands of Pools

Reported by the Associated Press

WASHINGTON (Dec. 16) -- Unless new anti-drowning drain covers are installed, tens of thousands of public swimming pools and hot tubs could be forced to close Saturday under a sweeping law designed to prevent drain suction from trapping children underwater.

The rules apply to pools and spas used by the public, including municipal pools and those at hotels, private clubs, apartment buildings and community centers. (CID's are included.)

NBC's Today show ran a news story on this issue.


Continue reading "Drain Rule May Close Thousands of Pools" »

November 3, 2008

DON'T FORGET TO VOTE ON NOVEMBER 4TH

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

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

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

How Does the Electoral College Affect Voting Results?

While community associations don't have an Electoral College, they often have cumulative voting. Cumulative voting is not the same as the Electoral College, but sometimes it is just as complicated. Cumulative voting is designed to allow the minority in a community association the opportunity to place their candidate on the Board of Directors.

The Electoral College was established to maintain each individual state's power. This means that the President of our country, as in 2004, is elected by the Electoral College of State Representatives, rather than a direct vote by all of the individual citizens.

I read an interesting article on the Electoral College. California is not a battleground state. It is considered a "blue" state, and even though it is projected that a significant majority of California voters will vote for the "blue" candidate, the Electoral College has rendered those votes almost meaningless.

Even though California has more electoral votes than any other state, 55, and even though our 36 million population is by far the largest, about 12% of the entire country (or almost 1 out of every 8 Americans), California is considered a nonentity in this Presidential election. Texas has the second-highest population, with almost 8% of the country's population and 34 Electoral College votes. It is considered a "red" state.

The article by California attorney Mark Neubauer states that this election, "like so many before, will be decided by a handful of far smaller states, such as Missouri, which has less than 6 million inhabitants, under 2% of the population, and only 11 electoral votes."

He goes on to state, "the reason for this undemocratic election of a democratic President lies in a system designed more than two centuries ago. In its infancy, the United States was a collection of separate state governments, each jealous of the other. To maintain each individual state's power, they set up a system where the President of our country is elected by an Electoral College of State Representatives, rather than a direct vote by all of the individual citizens. Only Nebraska and Maine divide their Electoral College delegates between the candidates. Margins of victory in individual states become irrelevant if the state is already clearly predicted in one political camp or the other."

This means that despite California's millions of voters who will likely vote overwhelmingly for the "blue" candidate, that margin of victory will have no impact on the final decision "compared to the close races in the Midwest and Southeast." California, Texas and "blue" state New York, with approximately 25% of the nation's population, are effectively watching this election from the sidelines.

You may download Mr. Neubauer's full article here.

And all this time you thought that the 2006 amendments to the Civil Code changing the way associations held elections was complicated.

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.

November 11, 2000

November 17, 2005 Teleconference

As of January 1, 2006, Senate Bill 137 takes effect and the civil code sections regarding assessment collection drastically alter the collection process. In addition, the new law will prohibit associations from foreclosing on an assessment lien unless the amount of assessments owed (not including costs or interest) is $1,800 or one year of delinquency has passed on any unpaid assessments.

Our attorneys have been diligently researching and deciphering every aspect of this new law. As a courtesy, Swedelson & Gottlieb/Association Lien Services will be hosting a teleconference on Thursday, November 17, 2005, at 10:00 a.m., to explain new civil code changes. There will be time at the end of the conference for questions to be answered. Just prior to the audio conference call seminar we will send you, via email, an outline and timetable or you can download a copy at hoalawblog.com. If you cannot call in at the scheduled time, you will have the option of calling in later (within 24 hours from the scheduled call time) and listen to a recording of the conference call, questions asked and answers to questions.

To participate in our teleconference, please contact Jennie Swanson, (310) 207-2207 ext. 210 or jennie@sghoalaw.com, to receive the call-in number and password. An article on the new law is currently accessible on our blog site, hoalawblog.com, we recommend reviewing it prior to the teleconference to help formulate any questions you may want to ask.

November 11, 2000

Legislative Update: 2006 New Laws Affecting Community Associations

Download ca_law_update_article_blog_.pdf

September 13, 2000

As The Condo Market Sours, Buyers Turn To Courts Seeking Exit Deals

Interesting article recently appeared in the Wall Street Journal (and was also reported in the Los Angeles Daily Journal). Apparently there are "tens of thousands of empty or unfinished condominiums" in Florida. While we have not heard of this type of inventory in California, there are many condominium buildings under construction or recently completed, and many if not most of those units have not been sold. Many owners or individuals who've contracted to buy some of these uncompleted units may be seeking some sort of exit strategy and that may include lawsuits.

The Wall Street Journal article states that recent legal decisions in Florida courts indicate that won't be that easy for buyers to get out of those deals. "the bottom line: unless it's a bona fide contract dispute, and investors chance of winning appear to be slim."

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

February 18, 2000

Association and Owners Battle Over Easement

I noticed this article in a local paper. Casa Gateway had been a client several years ago. Does not appear that they are working with an attorney. Not often that such a dispute ends up in the newspaper. David Swedelson

Casa Gateway Residents Organize to Halt Sale of Valuable Easement

February 09, 2006

Some residents of Casa Gateway at the base of the Palisades Highlands are circulating a petition this week to stop a ballot measure initiated by the board of directors of Casa Gateway Homeowners Association in January.

The petition is a demand that the association immediately stop spending any more time or money on the ballot, which could potentially grant an easement to a Palisades developer. Apparently, the petition arose from a raucous meeting last Saturday when a straw vote overwhelmingly opposed granting the easement to Kaya Tuncer, who owns the land on the hillside above the affordable housing complex.

While those in favor of the plan saw it as a 'win-win' situation for the homeowners, who stand to gain financially from the deal (a minimum of $350,000 to the association), those opposed argued that no amount of money could compensate for the potential fallout from such an agreement. They worry about the liability ('Who's responsible if there's a landslide?') to the eventual possible threat to Casa Gateway's low-cost housing status.

The straw vote came after considerable disagreement over exactly what was being asked on the ballot, which was sent to all 100 Casa Gateway residents and is due tomorrow. To pass, the ballot requires 51 percent of the vote.

'It is not clear whether we are being asked to actually grant the easement or whether we are being asked to simply enter into negotiations to grant the easement,' complained one resident who contacted the Palisadian-Post last week. 'Also, the attorney's letter we received with the ballot refers to Tuncer 'purchasing' the easement, which is quite different from us simply 'granting' him access.'

The January 20 letter also states that the board of directors has the right to accept Tuncer's proposal without the membership's approval, which is apparently not the case, according to the association's CC&R's (4.2).

'The reason the board is coming to us now is because they don't want the liability down the road,' the disgruntled resident continued. 'I do believe that if we agree to this easement, it will affect our affordable housing status. Once we give up our right to part of that land, what's next? The attorney said he has the city's verbal permission to grant this easement, but we haven't seen anything in writing.'

Casa Gateway, located at the corner of Palisades Drive and Sunset, was built in 1987 as HUD (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development) low-cost housing.

While there are 100 units in the complex, 68 are reserved exclusively for seniors (62 and older). These senior apartments'all one-bedroom, one-bath in approximately 500 sq. ft.'rarely come on the market. When they do, they are often sold through word-of-mouth to family and/or friends of existing owners. The remaining 32 units are reserved for families who qualify for affordable housing. The three-bedroom, two-bath condos sell for approximately $200,000 to qualified buyers'well below market value for comparable condos in the Palisades. All sales are subject to approval by the Los Angeles Housing Department.

Residents at Casa Gateway, which has several landscaped common areas for recreation and socializing, pay a monthly fee of $215 to the CGHA to cover dues and general maintenance.

Tuncer has been negotiating with the association on-and-off for the last five years to allow access to his property. In a meeting with residents last year, the developer indicated that he intended to built either two large single-family homes on his property, or if he can get the land re-zoned, he would build up to 30 multi-family units. While Tuncer had originally offered to buy the easement, but the association's CC&R's prohibit such a sale.

What Tuncer is now asking for is an easement 'in perpetuity' which would give him permission to build a roadway in an approximately 8,000 sq. ft. rectangular plot of land between Casa Gateway and Calvary Church. The easement would not only provide vehicle access to his property but would also allow for the installation of any utilities. What the residents would get in return would be an initial $350,000 payment, plus more if the multi-family units are built. The residents are also being promised indemnity from any ensuing litigation.

The board of directors, made up of six residents, initiated the ballot measure in January to finally prompt some action on the Tuncer proposal. Whether the funds would go to the individual homeowners or into the association's general fund is not clear.

The developer has let it be known that if the association does not allow the easement, he will develop Via Lucia in Paseo Miramar, currently an abandoned city road to the west of the rectangular area, which he said would provide the access he needs (but with greater topography challenges).

How much such a road would cost to develop is not known.