By David Swedelson, Partner at SwedelsonGottlieb, Community Association Attorneys
I recently read a newspaper article about Justin Bieber and the problems he is allegedly creating for his homeowners association in Calabasas, California. Homeowners are apparently unhappy that he is racing his Ferrari around the association’s streets, and they threatened to withhold payment of their assessments unless and until their board did something about the situation. That would be a mistake for those owners or any owner who has a dispute with their association, because they simply do not have the right to withhold payment of their assessments as leverage to get their association to do what they want.
Owners often make this threat. Usually, it is when they have suffered damage in their unit, or they want maintenance done and they think that the association has not responded as quickly or as well as they would like, or with the answers they want. These owners think they are tenants, and the association is their landlord, and that gives them the right to withhold the only income the association receives to pay for maintenance, utilities, insurance, management-and the list goes on. That belief is wrong and has gotten some owners into trouble.
Continue reading
Does your community association have disabled parking spaces? Maybe I should ask if the association ever had these spaces. There is no police force that goes out and checks. But we know that over time, some boards have “converted” what were initially designated as handicap or disabled parking spaces into guest parking or assigned parking for management or other staff. 
Is your condo association exclusively a commercial or industrial development? Surprise — as of January 1, 2014, the Davis-Stirling Act no longer applies to your association. Your association is now regulated by the new Commercial and Industrial Common Interest Development Act (CICIDA), Civil Code Sections 6500-6876.
We know that most of you are likely overwhelmed with the new Davis-Stirling Act. But there was other new legislation that impacts many California community associations.
Since the old Davis-Stirling Act was made into law in 1985, there has been a small debate over whether an owner or their association is responsible for temporary relocation costs incurred when owners in a common interest development are required to vacate their units or homes for common area repairs. Former California Civil Code Section 1364(c) stated that the “costs of temporary relocation during the repair and maintenance of the areas within the responsibility of the association shall be borne by the owner of the separate interest affected.” On its own, this provision seems clear enough; however, because this language was found in the code section that also dealt with termite fumigation, and because it followed the provision dealing with termite fumigation, some owners were confused and debated the issue with their association’s board and management, claiming that unless the relocation was as a result of a treatment for termites, their association had to pay their relocation costs. They were confused and wrong. 
From all of us at SwedelsonGottlieb, we hope you have had a joyous holiday season, and we wish you much success in the New Year!
In March of 2012, we reported on a lawsuit in Hawaii where the jury awarded $3.87 Million to a couple of condo owners In Molokai.