HOA Law Blog

June 25, 2010

Legislation Alert – AB 1726 (Swanson) In Jeopardy

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

June 10, 2010

Are We Really That Opposed to Artificial Turf? Really!

by David C. Swedelson

An Editorial by David C. Swedelson, Esq., Senior Partner, SwedelsonGottlieb
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

June 10, 2010

Who is Responsible for Heating/Air Conditioning Ducts and Other Common Area Elements? It is Not That Complicated!

by David C. Swedelson

One of the more difficult and confusing issues that boards and association management often have to deal with is determining who is responsible for the maintenance and repair of common area plumbing, ventilation and other utility components, especially those that serve only one unit. Even attorneys sometimes get it wrong and believe that merely because the pipe, duct or wiring serves only one unit, the affected owner is responsible for same. Just because a common area component serves or benefits only one unit does not by itself make that component that owner’s repair and/or replacement responsibility.
Continue reading

June 10, 2010

Electronic Delivery

by David C. Swedelson

Don’t you wish that you could utilize e-mail or other new technology to disseminate important association documents? Maybe you can! Effective January 2010, Civil Code Section 1350.7 was amended to allow community associations to send certain documents to the owners via e-mail or other methods of electronic delivery. Our Senior Partner, Sandra Gottlieb, has prepared an article regarding electronic delivery and the amendment to Civil Code Section 1350.7. This article was published in the March/April 2010 edition of the O.C. View, the bi-monthly publication of the Orange County Chapter of the Community Associations Institute. Follow this link to read this important article.

May 28, 2010

California Appellate Court Rules that a Developer Cannot Force HOA to Arbitrate Defect Claims Based on a Provision in the CC&Rs

by David C. Swedelson

By Alyssa Klausner, SwedelsonGottlieb Senior Associate

In the case of Villa Vicenza Homeowners Association V. Nobel Court Development (follow this link to see the entire decision), the developer of a condominium project recorded a Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) which required a homeowners association to arbitrate any construction defect claim the association might have against the developer. The Court ruled that the CC&Rs are not an effective means of obtaining an agreement to arbitrate a homeowners association’s construction defect claims against a developer.

The basis of the Court’s decision was that the recorded CC&Rs, standing alone, are not a contract between the developer and the homeowners association, which only came into existence after the CC&Rs were recorded, and therefore there has been no showing the association entered into a binding arbitration agreement.

May 26, 2010

Hooray, AB 2502 Is Dead; But What About The Waiver and Partial Payment Issues, and Why Did CLAC Support This Bill?

by David C. Swedelson

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?

May 25, 2010

Community Associations May Be Able To Recover Payments From Unlicensed Contractor Even If Contractor Was Licensed For Part of the Job

by David C. Swedelson

Where a homeowner paid an unlicensed contractor for landscaping work at his home, his knowledge that the contractor was not licensed when work commenced did not bar an action for full reimbursement under Business and Professions Code Sec. 7031(b), and the homeowner was entitled to recover the total amount paid even though the contractor was licensed during a portion of the work. The homeowner was also entitled to recover payments for materials retained by him, in addition to payments for labor.

This applies to California Community Associations who hire contractors and then find out they are not licensed. This may sound unfair, but the penalty is designed to discourage unlicensed contractors from performing contracting work.

Click here for the full text of the Alatriste v. Cesar’s Exterior Designs, Inc. case recently decided by the California Court of Appeal.

May 21, 2010

The Association Has Foreclosed on its Lien – Now What?

by David C. Swedelson

By the Community Association Attorneys at SwedelsonGottlieb
So the board has done its due diligence, investigated its options and decided that chasing down the owner who has not paid their assessments for many months is likely to be a waste of time, money and association resources. The board has considered the options and opted to complete the non-judicial foreclosure process with the actual foreclosure sale on its lien. (See our prior article entitled, “To Foreclose or Not to Foreclose, That Seems to be the Question”) Because the senior lien or lien/trust deed securing the original purchase loan for the property is in an amount that exceeds the current (2010) depressed value of the property, no third party bid at the foreclosure sale and the association ended up with the property (unit/lot) after the 90-day redemption period.

Assuming that the ninety (90) day redemption period has ended (see our previous post on the homeowner’s right of redemption) and the trustee’s deed upon sale has been issued and recorded, the association is now the owner of the unit, lot/home (subject to the senior encumbrances). The board has lots of questions. We’ve got answers.
Continue reading

May 21, 2010

What the Heck is the Single Action Rule?

by David C. Swedelson

When it comes to enforcing obligations secured by California real estate, California is a “single action” or “one-action” state. Civil Procedure Code Section 726(a) provides in part that “[t]here can be but one form of action for the recovery of any debt or the enforcement of any right secured by a mortgage upon real property.” This “one-action” rule applies when a California community association secures, as it should, the delinquent owner’s assessment obligation by recording a lien and then exercises its remedies to recover that debt. The purpose of the one-action rule is to protect the delinquent owner from being harassed by a lot of different actions filed against it by the association.   
Continue reading

May 21, 2010

The Delinquent Homeowner is Pursuing a Short Sale – Help!

by David C. Swedelson

As we make our way through the “Great Recession”, we find that many owners are still upside down in their units/homes, owing more to their lender than the current potential sales price. In many cases, the owners cannot afford to pay the bank and are looking to get out from ownership of their home or unit. Many owners are trying to do short sales, where they take an offer to buy their property for less than the loan amount and try to obtain their lender’s agreement to take less than the amount that is owed on their loan/trust deed. We are getting calls from community association managers and board members who are asking what to do when faced with the prospect of a short sale, where the owner is also asking their association to discount the amount that is owed for delinquent assessments, late fees, interest, collection fees and costs.
Continue reading