Articles Posted in Legislative Developments

Assembly Bill 771 (Betsy Butler), which amends Civil Code Section 1368 regarding documents to be provided the buyer in an escrow, was sponsored by the California Association of Realtors and initially sought to place a cap on fees that may be charged by management companies and others who provide documents upon sale or transfer of a separate interest. This bill was opposed by all industry trade groups and was ultimately revised to remove the cap. As signed by the Governor, the bill sets out the items which are to be provided to a buyer as well as an estimated fee for each.
Continue reading

By David Swedelson, Condo lawyer and HOA attorney; Senior Partner SwedelsonGottlieb

Despite significant industry opposition, the Governor has signed into law amendments to the Davis Stirling Act and specifically Civil Code Section 1363.05, also known as the Common Interest Development Open Meeting Act. Here is the story of how this new law came to be:

As most of you know, the Act was amended with the addition of this code section requiring that board meetings at California community associations be open to members except for certain specified executive session meetings when those meetings should be kept confidential or emergency meetings when the required notice to owners is not possible.
Continue reading

By David C. Swedelson, Esq.; SwedelsonGottlieb Community Association Attorneys

SwedelsonGottlieb has been responding to a flood of inquiries regarding the recently chaptered California SB 150, a bill which amends Sections 1368 and 1373 of the Davis-Stirling Act and adds a new Civil Code Section to the Act affecting certain rental restriction provisions in CC&Rs that are recorded on or after January 1, 2012. As there seems to be a good deal of confusion about this bill (even among some attorneys in our industry), we thought it would be beneficial for the readers of HOALawBlog to clearly explain the applicability and effect of this new legislation.

The Legislative Counsel’s Digest contains a good summary of the purpose of the bill: “This bill would prohibit the owner of a separate interest in a common interest development from being subject to a provision in a governing document, or a provision in an amendment to a governing document, that prohibits the rental or leasing of all or any of the separate interests in that common interest development to a renter, lessee, or tenant unless that governing document, or amendment thereto, was effective prior to the date the owner acquired title to his or her separate interest.” As noted above, this bill applies to some, but not all, rental restrictions recorded on or after January 1, 2012.

We were advised that the California Senate Transportation & Housing Committee is prepared to vote on SB 563 (DeSaulnier) that deals with Community Association Board Meetings. We encourage you to contact the members of this Committee and tell them to vote “NO” on SB 563 which will, if made law, prohibit any actions and communications among community association board directors outside of noticed board meetings (excluding emergencies). Both the California Legislative Action Committee of Community Associations Institute (CLAC) and the Cailfornia Association of Community Managers are opposed to this bill in its current form.

Community associations are, for the most part, corporations and are required to comply with the sections of the California Corporations Code and Civil Code that already deal with the requirements for making decisions, taking actions in furtherance of their fiduciary duties, and reporting to the members.

Board members are volunteers, and things are always coming up that require their action. Day-to-day matters need to be acted upon as they arise, and holding off until the next board meeting (which may not be for months) may be impossible or impractical for a variety of reasons.

By David C. Swedelson, SwedelsonGottlieb Partner

There was an interesting article on new legislation in the March 6, 2011 edition of the Los Angeles Times about the 2,323 new bills that have been introduced in the California legislature, and this includes several that impact California community associations (more on that below). As reported in the Times:

In addition to addressing the state’s $25-billion deficit this year, the Legislature is making time for some other less-pressing matters: Caffeinated beer. Spaceships. How to properly describe a dog pound.

Proposals on those subjects are among the 2,323 bills lawmakers have introduced this year. Others would revise the definition of olive oil and regulate the reflectivity of pavement to help curb global warming. There’s a measure to create a “Parks Make Life Better” month.
Continue reading

CAR has let it be known that it plans to introduce a bill in 2011 that will effectively restrict or limit the fees that community association management companies now charge for such things as ownership transfers and compliance with Civil Code Section 1368. This is likely going to be a very contentious issue, as these are fees that the owners of the specific property that is making the request should be required to pay directly to management. If CAR’s legislation were to become effective, it is likely that owners in escrows would only be required to pay the actual costs of duplication, etc. As a consequence, the associations would themselves end up paying the fees for the manager’s services, which would in turn be paid by all owners. How can community associations budget for these fees when they have no idea how many requests they will get in a fiscal year? Why should all owners pay for a service that benefits only one owner? This proposed legislation will negatively impact management and associations.

For example, consider the result that occurred when the legislature amended Civil Code Section 1365.2 a few years ago. That code section deals with an association’s obligation to provide owners with records. Civil Code Section 1365.2 limits the fees and charges that can be charged to the requesting owner. As a result, the additional fees charged by the manager for finding, compiling and preparing the requested association records for production ends up getting paid by all owners and not the owner that made the request. Management companies are entitled to be paid for these extra services, and the payment for these services should come from the owner requesting the service.

This proposed legislation seeks to overturn the 2007 Court of Appeal decision in Berryman v. Merit Property Management that held that the documentation and transfer fees charged by management are products of market forces and are not subject to statutory control.

Karen Conlon from the California Association of Community Managers (CACM) reports that in this most recent legislative session, Senate Bill 294 was introduced for the purpose of consolidating and downsizing the numerous boards, commissions, etc. that exist in California. To protect the CACM manager certification standards in the Business & Professions Codes, CACM asked that the sunset provision in B&P Section 11506 be extended and NOT eliminated as a result of this bill. By doing so, manager certification standards would be preserved. The Senate B&P Committee agreed to this request. Follow this link to see the portion of the bill that reflects the extension of the sunset provision to January 1, 2015 (the sunset provision was originally due to expire January 2012). SB 294 was signed by the Governor and chaptered into law. Congratulations to CACM.