HOA Law Blog

Earlier this year, California Assemblymember Swanson introduced AB 1726, a bill that would benefit California common interest developments. As amended, the bill has been watered down in some respects but improved in other respects, and it remains a valuable piece of legislation. We have recently been alerted by the California Legislative Action Committee, which supports the bill, that the bill is encountering unexpected opposition in the state senate. Please fax a message to the state senate committee members by Monday, June 28 in support of AB 1726.

Continue reading "Legislation Alert - AB 1726 (Swanson) In Jeopardy" »

Posted by David C. Swedelson | Permalink | Email This Post | Print this Post

Posted In: Legislative Developments

Bookmark:

An Editorial by David C. Swedelson, Esq., Senior Partner, Swedelson & Gottlieb

Many of you received an urgent request by the California Legislative Action Committee (CLAC) for grassroots letters to be sent to the legislature opposing Assembly Bill 1793 (Saldana). I am not sure that I agree with what CLAC stated, and I really wonder if this is legislation that the CID industry should oppose.

I do not now personally have any artificial turf at my home, but I have considered it. I do have neighbors that have installed it, and my daughter’s school installed it on the athletic field. I do not have an interest in any company that manufactures, sells or installs artificial turf.

Today’s artificial turf looks a lot different than the “Astroturf” we may be familiar with. Esthetically, the newer products I have seen look like real grass. Even if I get on my hands and knees to check, it is hard to tell if it is artificial grass.

Continue reading "Are We Really That Opposed to Artificial Turf? Really!" »

Posted by David C. Swedelson | Permalink | Email This Post | Print this Post

Posted In: Legislative Developments

Bookmark:

As we reported in April, Assemblymember Julia Brownley had proposed AB 2502, which would have made assessment collection in California even more difficult than it already is. We have great news. Because of all of the opposition she received (your letters and emails were acknowledged) and because some of those that backed the bill withdrew their support when Brownley amended parts of the bill, Brownley likely realized that compromise was impossible, the bill never made it out of committee and it did not advance to the floor for a vote. This legislation would have imposed new and unwarranted restrictions on the assessment collection process for California community associations.

Brownley had agreed and did amend the bill to eliminate the requirement that associations wait until the delinquent owner owed $3,600 or was 18 months delinquent before foreclosing. But she had left in the proposed prohibition on a waiver of the provisions of Civil Code Section 1367.1 relating to the allocation of payments, as well as the proposed prohibition on not accepting partial payments, and we learned that these issues were not only misunderstood by the legislator, but by others in the community association industry as well.

And why did the Community Association Institute's California Legislative Action Committee (CLAC), which had originally opposed the bill, then decide to support this flawed legislation?

To learn more about why the waiver and partial payment prohibition are important to California community associations, download our full article.

Posted by David C. Swedelson | Permalink | Email This Post | Print this Post

Posted In: Assessment Collection , Legislative Developments

Bookmark: