HOA Law Blog

For those California community associations that have a calendar fiscal year, they are likely in the process of developing their 2009 budget. Pursuant to California Civil Code Section 1365, “[n]otwithstanding a contrary position in the governing documents, a copy of the operating budget shall be annually distributed not less than 30 days and no more than 90 days prior to the beginning of the association’s fiscal year.”

However, it is important to keep in mind that the budget is not the only disclosure California community associations are required to make. Swedelson & Gottlieb’s Annual Disclosure Checklist sets out the additional information and disclosures associations are required to distribute to the owners on an annual basis. Typically, the disclosures are made as part of the budget package.

For those of you that are wondering what happens if you don’t get the budget out timely, Civil Code Section 1366 states that the board loses the ability to increase the amount of assessments without the approval of the homeowners.

There are other required disclosures that if not made could have a negative impact on the association. For example, the failure to distribute the insurance disclosures and to provide for the appropriate level of insurance could impose personal liability on board members and/or homeowners. We encourage all Board members and association managers to review the checklist to make sure that their associations are fully complying with the disclosure requirements under California Law.

Download Swedelson & Gottlieb's 2008-2009 Disclosure Checklist

2005 - 2006 ANNUAL DISCLOSURE CHECKLIST FOR COMMUNITY ASSOCIATIONS

NOT LESS THAN 30 DAYS NOR MORE THAN 90 DAYS PRIOR TO THE BEGINING OF THE FISCAL YEAR:

 Pro Forma Operating Budget Civil Code § 1365(a)
The association must distribute its operating “pro forma” budget within the “60-day window” to retain its ability to unilaterally increase assessments. If this requirement is not met, the members must approve any increase to the regular assessments.

The budget must contain the following:
• an estimate of revenue and expenses on an accrual basis;
• a summary of the reserves printed in bold type;
• with respect to construction or design defect cases, the summary must also include a separate line
item for:
(1) funds received from compensatory damage awards or settlements; and
(2) expenditure or disposition of funds, including amounts for direct/indirect costs of repair of
defects (If the association is required to have a CPA conduct a review of its financial
statements, the above information may instead be contained in such review);
• a statement as to whether the board anticipates the levy of one or more special assessments; and
• a basic description of the procedures used to calculate the reserves.

 Summary of Pro Forma Operating Budget Civil Code § 1365(c)
(Alternative to Above) The association may distribute a summary of the operating budget in lieu of the pro forma budget.

The summary budget must give members notice that:
• the complete budget is available for review at the association’s business office or other
suitable location within the development; and
• copies of the complete budget will be provided upon request at no charge to a member within
five (5) days of the request.

These notices must be printed in at least 10-point bold type on the front page of the summary.

 Assessment and Reserve Funding Disclosure Summary
The association must distribute an Assessment and Reserve Funding Disclosure Summary in the form prescribed by Civil Code Section 1365.2.5. This disclosure requires more than just a description of the amount of reserves and/or the association’s budget contributions. Disclosure of, among other things, the components being reserved for, their anticipated remaining life and how much money is currently in reserves allocated to that component must be disclosed.

 Assessment Increases Civil Code § 1366(d)
Notice of an assessment increase or special assessment must be provided by first-class mail to members not less than thirty (30) nor more than sixty (60) days before the increase or assessment is due. Note: Even if the budget shows the increased assessments, prepare and distribute a general notice.

 Assessment Collection Policy Civil Code § 1365(d)
Members must receive a description of the policies and practices which the association will apply to enforce payment of assessments. The failure to adopt and distribute this assessment collection policy may affect an association’s ability to collect delinquent assessments.

This notice usually describes:
• how, when and under what conditions the association will record and foreclose upon assessment liens;
• the nature and amount of late charges, interest and collection costs; and
• owners’ rights to demand Internal Dispute Resolution (“IDR”) and Alternative Dispute Resolution (“ADR”) at different times during the collection process.

 Secondary Addresses Provided by Owners
The association shall notify owners of their right to submit secondary addresses to the association for purposes of collection notices. Upon receipt of a written request by an owner identifying a secondary address for purposes of collection notices, the association shall send additional copies of any notices required by Section 1367.1 of the California Civil Code to the secondary address provided. The owner’s request shall be in writing and shall be mailed to the association in a manner that shall indicate that the association has received it. The owner may identify or change a secondary address at any time, provided that, if a secondary address is identified or changed during the collection process, the association shall only be required to send notices to the requested secondary address from the point that the association receives the request.

WITH THE BUDGET SUMMARY, OR IN ANY GENERALY MAILING DURING THE YEAR:

 Notice of Right to Minutes of Board Meeting Civil Code § 1363.05(d)
On an annual basis, the association must notify members of their right to receive copies of the minutes from board of directors’ meetings (which does not include executive session meeting minutes).
The notice should state:
1. that members have the right to receive approved minutes, an unapproved draft, or a summary of the minutes within thirty (30) days of a board meeting upon member’s request and upon reimbursement of association’s costs to distribute minutes; and
2. how and from whom those minutes may be obtained.

 Arbitration/Mediation of CC&Rs Disputes Civil Code § 1369.510 et seq.
Annually, the association must distribute a summary of Civil Code Section 1369.510 et seq. to its members.

Section 1369.510 et seq. provides, in part:
• An owner or the association must first offer arbitration, mediation or conciliation prior to litigating an action to enforce the governing documents, in seeking injunctive or declaratory relief, or injunctive or declaratory relief plus damages of up to $5,000 (other than assessments);
• thirty (30) days in which the responding party may accept or reject ADR

Civil Code §1369.590 requires that associations annually provide members with a summary of the ADR that specifically states:
“Failure of a member of the association to comply with the alternative dispute resolution requirements of Section 1369.520 of the Civil Code may result in the loss of your right to sue the association or another member of the association regarding enforcement of the governing documents or the applicable law.”

The summary must be provided “either at the time the pro forma budget required by Civil Code Section 1365 is distributed or in the manner prescribed in Section 5016 of the Corporations Code.”

 Insurance Coverages Civil Code § 1365(e)
The association must distribute to the members a summary of its property, general liability, earthquake, flood and fidelity insurance policies. The summary should also state:
• the name of the insurer and the type of insurance; and
• the policy limits and deductibles, if any.

To the extent the above information is contained on the policy’s declaration page, that page can be distributed in lieu of the summary.

The summary or declaration page must include the statement provided in Civil Code Section 1365(e)(4). This statement must be in at least 10-point boldface type.

Notice of a lapse, cancellation or non-renewal of any policy or of any change in policy shall be provided to the members by first-class mail as soon as reasonably practicable.

Within Sixty (60) days prior to beginning of fiscal year:

 Notice of Assessments, Foreclosures and Payment Plans Civil Code §1365.1
The association must distribute the notice specified in Civil Code Section 1365.1 pertaining to assessments, the association’s rights of foreclosure, payments of assessments and meetings and payment plans concerning a delinquent assessment.

WITHIN 120 DAYS AFTER THE CLOSE OF EACH FISCAL YEAR

 Review of Financial Statement Civil Code § 1365(b)
For any fiscal year in which the association’s gross income exceeds $75,000, a review of its financial statement must be prepared by a licensed California accountant and distributed to members within 120 days after the close of each fiscal year.

 Notice of Right to Receive Annual Report Corporations Code § 8321
For any fiscal year in which the association’s gross revenues are at least $10,000, it must prepare an annual report within 120 days after the end of the association’s fiscal year and notify members on an annual basis of their right to receive this report. The association must provide the report at its own expense to any member submitting a written request for a copy of the report.

The annual report must contain:
• a year-end financial statement;
• a notice stating where records of the association members’ names and addresses are stored; and
• disclosure of transactions with interested parties and of indemnification agreements.

The association must attach either the accountant’s report, if an independent accountant has reviewed or audited the financial statement, or a certificate by an officer indicating that the statement was prepared without review or audit.

MISCELLANEOUS DISCLOSURES

 Schedule of Monetary Penalties Civil Code § 1363(g)
Associations which impose fines on members for violating governing documents or association rules must distribute a schedule of the monetary penalties via first class mail or hand-delivery when the schedule is adopted or revised (recommended annually).

 Escrow/Sale of Unit Civil Code § 1368(a) and (b)
Within ten (10) days of written request from an owner, an association must provide the owner (or owner’s agent/escrow) with a copy of various documents and information so that the owner may satisfy certain disclosure obligations to a prospective buyer. Among the documents and information to be provided by the selling owner is a statement of unpaid fines and other monetary penalties, as well as a copy or summary of any notices of alleged violations of the governing documents that remain unresolved at the time of making the disclosure to the prospective buyer.

 Disclosure of Construction Defect Issues Before Suit Civil Code § 1368.5, § 1375(k)(1)(E)
Thirty (30) days before an association files a lawsuit for construction defects, it must provide notice to all owners of the defect issues, schedule a members meeting to discuss the claims and the available options, including any settlement offer from the builder, as referenced in California Civil Code Section 1375(k)(1)(E).

 Disclosure of Construction Defect Settlement Civil Code § 1375.1
Upon settling a construction defect claim with the builder, the association must so inform the members as soon as reasonably practicable, of the following:
(1) disclose what will be repaired;
(2) estimate when the defects will be repaired; and
(3) disclose any defects that may not be repaired.

 Reserve Fund Transfer Civil Code § 1365.5(d)
When an association uses or transfers any funds from its reserve account to fund litigation, it must notify the members of the transfer and of the availability of an accounting in the next available mailing to the membership.

 Litigation Expenses Civil Code § 1365.5(d)
Unless the association’s governing documents impose more stringent standards, the association shall prepare an accounting of the litigation expenses on at least a quarterly basis. The accounting shall be made available for inspection by members at the association’s office.

Swedelson & Gottlieb was asked to prepare a letter to Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and his staff setting out our issues and concerns regarding AB 2598. The following is our letter that went out to the Governor on September 21, 2004:

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger
State Capitol Building
Sacramento, California 95814

Re: Veto AB 2598

Dear Governor Schwarzenegger:

We have been asked to provide you with some additional information regarding community associations, assessment collection procedures, and why AB 2598 is not good law.

By way of background, this law firm specializes in representing community associations. While the bulk of our practice is located in Southern California, the assessment collection division of our law firm, Association Lien Services, collects delinquent assessments throughout the State of California. We annually process more than 2,000 delinquent assessment matters. While a significant number of those assessment collection matters require the recordation of an assessment lien on the delinquent owners’ property, less than one percent (1%) of those matters actually goes to foreclosure sale. This makes sense; homeowners don’t want to lose their property to their homeowner’s association.

The non-judicial foreclosure procedure has been successfully used without problems for many years. AB 2598 is an over reaction to one unfortunate occurrence earlier this year in Calaveras County (where an association foreclosed on some delinquent owners who owed a $120 annual assessment). Despite what proponents of this bill have stated, there are no rampant problems with the assessment collection process (set out in the Civil Code) that justifies the major changes that are part of AB 2598. In fact, despite inquiry, we cannot find any other similar types of situations as occurred in Calaveras County.

AB 2598 provides that a community association may not proceed with foreclosure on a recorded assessment lien unless and until the amount owed on assessments is $2500. For many associations, that amount may not be accrued for 12 months and in many cases 2 years! Alternatively, the association may proceed to Small Claims Court, but may not record the lien, which secures the obligation.

Securing the obligation with a lien is critically important to community associations. Without the lien, a homeowner may transfer interest in the property to avoid the obligation to the association. You would be surprised how often this occurs. Further, by recording a lien an association is a secured creditor in a bankruptcy proceeding. We are sure this is not a surprise to your office that many seriously delinquent homeowners have financial problems and file bankruptcy. Unless the lien is recorded, the association is not a secured creditor and cannot recover the delinquent assessments.

As you have already been advised in other letters your office has received, if a delinquent homeowner does not pay their assessments, each of the other homeowners at the association must cover the shortfall to the association. If several homeowners do not pay their assessments, this only compounds the problem. AB 2598 protects the delinquent homeowner at the expense of all the other homeowners of the association who timely pay their assessments. This is not fair to all of the owners who do pay their assessments timely and who believed that the association would have expedited means of collection (per the recorded CC&Rs).

In March of this year, David Swedelson traveled to Sacramento to talk with the legislators and their staff regarding this proposed legislation. Shocking as it may seem, they were unwilling to discuss issues we had with their proposed legislation. The staff people that drafted this bill seemed to have no experience with the assessment collection process or community associations. They were certainly not experts in this area of the law. They refused to consider the matters we are addressing in this letter. Instead, they told us that if the assessments owed are below $2500, it is a matter for the Small Claims Court. They refused to consider the fact that because the assessments are an association’s sole source of income, the associations must have an expedited collection procedure to be able to pay their association’s expenses. They also refused to consider the fact that there are problems with collecting assessments in Small Claims Court.

Many Small Claims Courts favor the owner at the expense of the association and they will not consider the law. Small Claims Court has been called the “peoples’ court” on television, and for good reason. In the Small Claims Court, the judges are commissioners that sit as the trier of fact. They often fail to consider California law, either statutes or case precedent. Instead, they seem more concerned with what they deem is fair, even if what they deem is fair does not comply with California law.

For example, when an association proceeds to Small Claims Court, the delinquent homeowner will often state that they have not paid their assessments because the association has not fixed damage in their unit caused by a roof leak. This issue is dealt with in Park Place Estates v. Naber (1994) 29 Cal.4th 427, where the court held that an owner may not withhold assessments owed to an association on the grounds that the owner is entitled to recover money or damages from the association for some other obligation. The court held that the Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act establishes a strong public policy against allowing a homeowner to offset assessments against any other obligation allegedly owed by the association to the owner. Many Small Claims Court Judges ignore this case law. The Association then loses the case and cannot appeal. In many cases the association did not owe the owner any money nor did it have an obligation to repair the damage.

When an association sues the homeowner for the delinquent assessments in Small Claims Court, someone from the association has to appear in court. Many courts will not allow the manager to appear and will require that a volunteer board member take time off of work to appear in court. Although AB 2598 will now allow a manager to appear, to do so will result in an hourly charge for their time to be paid, not by the delinquent homeowner, but by the association.

Our guess is that if a homeowner’s association is required to proceed to Small Claims Court, it will have a fifty-fifty chance of prevailing. These are not great odds. If the association does prevail, it is the delinquent homeowner who has the right to appeal (an association has no right of appeal as the plaintiff in Small Claims Court).

The appeal means that the association is further delayed in collection, and is required to participate in a second court hearing. Many divisions of the Los Angeles Superior Court are taking several months to schedule Superior Court appeals. Even on appeal, the association still has a fifty-fifty chance of prevailing.

Even if the association does prevail, and obtains a judgment, it then has to collect the money. This is not an easy process and if the owner did not pay the $125 assessment, they likely do not have the money available for collection of the judgement. Foreclosure of the property on a judgment lien is almost virtually impossible (different procedures are provided for a judgement lien). The association must find some asset, whether it be a bank account, car, or the person’s wages to execute on. The collection process is time consuming. Even if the association is eventually successful, the association is delayed in collecting the assessments it needs to pay its bills. Keep in mind that a community association’s sole source of income is typically the assessments that it is diligently trying to collect.

Please also keep in mind that without assessments, the association cannot pay for the vital services it provides to its homeowners. This may include utilities, water, insurance, maintenance, management, etc. Who is supposed to make up this deficit if homeowners don’t pay? The remaining homeowners, of course!

The only real option for associations (if you do not veto AB 2598) is to proceed with non-judicial foreclosure once the delinquent amount is $2500. Is delaying the process until the amount owed is $2500 really going to change the end result? Not really. The proponents of AB 2598 will likely still have issues if an association initiates foreclosure to collect $2500.

At many associations, the assessments owed are $100 to $150 per month. Should community associations have to wait two years to begin the foreclosure process? We do not think this is fair or appropriate.

The Court of Appeal in the Park Place case (cited above) made some interesting comments regarding assessments in their reported opinion. The court, in its decision, referred to various statutes regarding assessment collection, including Civil Code Section 1366, and 1367, and stated that:

“These statutory provisions reflect the legislators’ recognition of the importance of assessments to the proper functioning of condominiums in this state. Because homeowners associations cease to exist without regular payment of the assessment fees, the legislature has created procedures to quickly and efficiently seek relief against a non-paying owner.”

The legislators referenced are obviously those of the past. AB 2598 is a product of legislators that were perhaps not in office when Civil Code Sections 1366 and 1367 were adopted based on the legislature’s acknowledgment that community associations need a quick and efficient process to collect delinquent assessments. AB 2598 would end the current quick and efficient process. Legislation enacted in 2003 already requires additional notices and a longer notice period. There is no rash of problems with the foreclosure process that requires AB 2598. The legislature is being shortsighted and overreacting; it’s up to the Governor’s office to recognize what is in the best interests of the majority of citizens in the state.

AB 2598 also requires that an association enter into some form of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) with a delinquent homeowner if requested. The Civil Code now allows for ADR if a homeowner requests it, and deposits the amount of the assessments plus an additional amount to cover attorney’s fees and costs. This procedure was implemented to eliminate the potential that homeowners would abuse and delay the process. AB 2598 will now allow homeowners to abuse the process by demanding ADR, even if the only issue is the amount of assessments they owe. This will provide homeowners with an ability to arbitrate or mediate their “disputes” with their association, complaints that perhaps their association is not budgeting for (i.e. expenses, etc.) or properly maintaining the common area. This proposed ADR process will be time consuming, expensive, and will eliminate the quick and efficient ability of an association to collect assessments that are needed to pay the associations’ ongoing expenses.

AB 2598 also requires a “drive by” appraisal before an association can actually foreclose on homeowners’ property for non-payment of assessments. The language in this code section is not workable. At a foreclosure on an assessment lien, potential buyers are bidding on the amount of the lien, not the amount of the property. If the amount of the delinquent assessments, interest, late fees, costs and attorney’s fees are $3,000, the opening bid will be $3,000, without any recognition as to the value of the property. Potential bidders are not going to bid up to sixty five percent (65%) of the value of the property at a foreclosure on an assessment lien; they are going to bid based on the value of the lien and equity in the property. They recognize that they will take the property subject to all senior encumbrances. AB2598 fails to recognize the mechanics of the foreclosure process.

In the case of Wilton v. Mountainwood HOA (1993) 18 Cal.App.4 565, the Court of Appeal ruled in favor of an association with respect to a litigation privilege, ruling that the litigation privilege would attach to the recording of an assessment lien. The Court’s ruling is relevant to AB 2598. The Court concluded as follows:

“The litigation privilege attaches to the publication of the assessment lien even if the homeowners association has not decided, at the point the lien is filed, that it will pursue a judicial foreclosure, even if the lien is ultimately enforced by private sale. To conclude otherwise would make the privilege hinge upon factual inquiries and which remedy the association intended to use, and might lead associations to resort to judicial foreclosure in every case simply to avoid the risk of tort liability. There is no reason to flood the courts with such cases. The legislature has given homeowners associations a remedy of private sale, and we must avoid deterring the use of that remedy while at the same time protecting associations access to the courts for the purpose of judicial foreclosures.”

It is interesting that the Court of Appeal in Wilton also stated:

“We do not share appellants’ concern that our decision will prompt, associations to file a flood of fraudulent assessment liens against our neighbors, but should that occur the legislature is free to limit the litigation privilege for such liens as it has recently done with respect to lis pendens.”

That case was decided in 1993. There was no flood of fraudulent assessment liens then, and there has not been a flood of fraudulent or inappropriate assessment liens recorded on delinquent homeowners now. Nothing has occurred that justifies the legislature’s reaction, or in this case, overreaction, to a situation which isn’t even a problem. AB 2598 is motivated by individuals who have a problem with the community association concept. They seem to distrust how the associations are governed and the powers asserted by the association’s board.

AB 2598 will hurt more than help senior citizens and all of the citizens of California. It will undoubtedly require that associations increase their budgets to make up for the shortfall in the income that will likely occur as a result of homeowners who are not being compelled to timely pay their assessments. Absent a flood of problems, we are urging you to veto AB 2598.

Our firm, along with other experts in the industry are ready, willing, and able to meet with legislators to come up with legislation which is more sensitive to all citizens, while addressing the issues that concern the legislators and proponents of AB 2598. AB 2598 was an overreaction, was not well drafted and does not deal with the realities of California law or community associations in California. Again, we urge you to veto AB 2598.

Sincerely,

SWEDELSON & GOTTLIEB
DAVID C. SWEDELSON, ESQ.
SANDRA L. GOTTLIEB, ESQ.

BY: SANDRA L. GOTTLIEB