Articles Posted in CC&R and Rule Enforcement

By David Swedelson, Partner at SwedelsonGottlieb, Community Association Attorneys

vehicle_law_enforcement_-_Google_Search.png SB 298, which adds Section 53069.81 to the Government Code, is an unusual piece of legislation that provides community associations in one county of California with the ability to contract with local law enforcement agencies to provide Vehicle Code enforcement services at the association. We had not heard about this bill until now and do not know why it was limited to Orange County community associations as we know that associations in other parts of the State have a need for help with enforcement of the Vehicle Code on their private streets.

AB 298 authorizes the Board of Supervisors of the County of Orange, or the city council of a city within this county, to contract to provide supplemental law enforcement services to a homeowners’ association on an occasional or ongoing basis to enforce the Vehicle Code on a homeowners’ association’s privately owned and maintained road, as provided by Vehicle Code Section 21107.7.

SwedelsonGottlieb Senior Partner David Swedelson has been asked by Community Association Institute (CAI) – National to speak on Homeowner Hassles: Dealing With Nuisance Violations. This will be a part of CAI National’s series of webinars and will be broadcasted on July 17, 2013 (and available as a download later). For more information on this program, follow this link.
Webinar_Live_-_Homeowner_Hassles__Dealing_with_Nuisance_Violations-2.png

By David Swedelson, Senior Partner at
SwedelsonGottlieb, Community Association Attorneys

SwedelsonGottlieb_Prevails_In_Spite_Fence__View_Obstruction__Lawsuit___Entries___HOA_Law_Blog___Movable_Type_Publishing_Platform.pngA longtime client of the firm was sued by a woman that did not live in the association who claimed that our client had illegally obstructed her view of a lake owned by our client association. After a jury trial on the sole cause of action that was left after we prevailed on a motion for summary adjudication knocking out all of her other frivolous claims, the jury decided that there was no spite fence. This result was not a surprise as the plaintiff was not entitled to her view of the lake, no matter how precious it was to her.

Here are the facts: the plaintiff’s home bordered a park that the association owned and maintained and she was entitled to use the park. The park was between the plaintiff’s home and the lake, hundreds of feet separating her home from the lake. The park had been, at the time the plaintiff built her home, unimproved except for two 200 year old oak trees that partially obstructed her view. Otherwise, the park was made up of dirt and native grasses. Her neighbors wanted the park improved and prevailed upon the developer of the association to improve the park as was required by the development documents and the county. Exhibit_6a_Patterson_Home_before_Park.pdf__1_page_.pngThe plaintiff did enjoy a view of the association’s lake. But her view became obstructed several years later when the trees that the association’s developer planted grew up.

The plaintiff’s property, while not part of the association, is part of a community association, which unlike the association that is our client, is not a mandatory membership community association. It is a voluntary association, formed to manage issues of the homes in and around the plaintiff’s home (which homes were built before the association was formed). The plaintiff acknowledged that there were no restrictions on the land that require that she be provided a view or that require that our client association provide the plaintiff with an unrestricted view of the lake.

[NOTE: In the 1986 case of Pacifica Homeowners Association v. Wesley Palms Retirement Community, the California Court of Appeal concluded that “[a]s a general rule, a land owner has no natural right to air, light or an unobstructed view and the law is reluctant to imply such a right.” However, “such a right may be created by private parties through the granting of an easement or through the adoption of conditions, covenants and restrictions …”]
Continue reading

Blog Post by David Swedelson, SwedelsonGottlieb Partner, Condo Lawyer and HOA Attorney
openly_carrying_guns_-_Google_Search.pngAfter the Trayvon Martin shooting in Florida last year, I posted a blog article highlighting the need for community associations to supervise their volunteers. Follow this link for that March 2012 blog article. If you have been following the George Zimmerman trial at all, you would understand how important it is for community associations to supervise their volunteers. I am not following the day to day testimony at the trial but I have heard enough to tell me that perhaps George should not have been allowed to patrol his association looking for bad guys.

Apparently, in Florida, the community associations have volunteers that carry guns. I was alerted to a news report out of Orlando where a woman reported that she was sitting on a pier at a homeowners association when a man who said he was an HOA official came up to her brandishing a gun she claims he pointed at her, telling her that the pier was closed.
Continue reading

By David Swedelson, Condo Lawyer and HOA Attorney; Senior Partner at SwedelsonGottlieb, Community Association Attorneys

view.pngMany owners buy units, lots or homes at community associations that have views and are later shocked to learn that the view they cherish, the view that caused them to buy that home, is not guaranteed. The question that has been posed is whether or not property owners are entitled to an unobstructed view. With some exceptions, the answer in California is “no.” The California Supreme Court spoke on this subject in the late 19th century case of Kennedy v. Burnap and established the doctrine in California that one’s ownership of land does not imply a right to force owners of neighboring land to refrain from obstructing the view from the land or the light and air reaching the land. This law has not changed all that much since that case was decided in 1898.

Covenants, conditions and restrictions (“CC&Rs”) governing the use of land in common interest developments provide some protection for views. California law allows a community association’s CC&Rs to restrict view obstructions within the development as long as the restriction is reasonable. Restrictions on improvements or landscaping that obstructs a neighboring owner’s view do exist in CC&Rs in some, but not all, California condominium and homeowner associations. And they have been the subject of much litigation. And they have been successfully enforced. Some associations’ CC&Rs do not guarantee a view but only make an owner’s view a consideration when the association is considering another owner’s request to make a modification that would impact another owner’s view.

By David Swedelson, Condo Lawyer and HOA Attorney, Partner, SwedelsonGottlieb, Community Association Attorneys

pipes.pngA pipe, window or some other element of the common area leaks or breaks, and a condo association board decides that it is exclusive use common area and the unit owner’s repair and/or replacement responsibility, as it serves only that one unit. The problem is that this is not what the law provides. And while it may be what many board members and managers want to see happen, this is really contrary to the condominium concept where, unless the CC&Rs otherwise state, the association is responsible for the repair or replacement of the common area, and exclusive use common area is part of the common area. Let’s face reality, we really do not want to see owners opening up and trying to repair the common area, as they may likely not do the right repair, and that may come back to haunt the association in the future (after that owner has sold and moved).
Continue reading

By David Swedelson, Condo Lawyer and HOA Attorney; Senior Partner at SwedelsonGottlieb, Community Association Attorneys

badNeighbor.png
Every condo or homeowners association has one, that one owner that does not follow the rules, violates the CC&Rs, creates a nuisance or worse. The “bad” owner, the one that does not belong in a deed restricted community. And we often hear complaints from other owners suggesting that the bad neighbor is bringing down property values at their association. Turns out they may be right. According to a recent article in the New York Times regarding a neighbor’s effect on appraisals, “[w]hen calculating the value of a property, an appraiser also factors in surrounding conditions. Neighborhood nuisances, like an overgrown yard or a persistent odor, could in some cases bring down the value of adjacent homes by 5-10%…”
Continue reading

By Joan Lewis-Heard, Community Association Attorney/Litagator; Edited by David Swedelson, Senior Partner at SwedelsonGottlieb.

Screenshot_4_10_13_6_32_PM.png
So, your condo or homeowners association foreclosed on an assessment lien and is unfortunately the owner of a unit or home at the association. Not what the association wanted, but a reality as a result of the Great Recession. As this situation is not untypical for landlords, it is dealt with by the California Civil Code.

For the purposes of this discussion and issue, the former owner is considered a tenant as the association is now the owner. Where personal property remains on the premises/in the unit after a tenancy has terminated and the premises/unit has been vacated by the tenant, the association must give written notice to the tenant/former owner and to any other person the Association reasonably believes to be the owner of the property.
Continue reading

By David Swedelson, Condo Lawyer and HOA Attorney; Partner at SwedelsonGottlieb, Community Association Attorneys

smokingcigarette.png Think your condo association has no obligation to address secondhand smoking nuisance complaints? Think again. The Orange County Register reports that an Orange County jury has found a homeowners association negligent and in breach of the CC&Rs for failing to resolve a secondhand smoke dispute between neighbors at a Trabuco Canyon condominium association.

After a five-week trial (imagine being a board member and having to sit through 5 weeks of trial), the jury awarded a family more than $15,000, “finding the condo association and management failed to ensure the non-smoking family’s right to the ‘quiet enjoyment’ of their own unit.”
Continue reading

By David Swedelson, Partner, SwedelsonGottlieb, Community Association Attorneys

parkingspaces.png

The Los Angeles Times reports (on January 1, 2013) that as a result of government imposed fees on investors that do not reside in their apartments (we assume condos) or buy to flip them, in Hong Kong real estate investors are scrambling to buy parking spaces that are not subject to the fees. “Single spaces are now selling for more than some modest Southern California homes. Someone paid $288,000 in November 2012 for a parking space in a luxury apartment complex on Hong Kong Island. Or the $166,000 tab for a spot in a suburban development called Festival City. A space attached to an exclusive cliffside townhouse community in the ocean view neighborhood of Repulse Bay fetched $385,000 in March. And those are just the recorded sales.”
Continue reading

Contact Information