Effective January 1, 2005, Assembly Bill 1836 changes the current requirements and process for Alternative Dispute Resolution, by amending the existing provisions of the Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act (“Act) and adding additional provisions to the Act. This Bill was introduced to enact recommendations made by the California Law Review Commission (CLRC). This new legislation requires that associations adopt some form of Internal Dispute Resolution process, as discussed below, and it also expands the scope of the disputes to which the Alternative Dispute Resolution processes must or can be applied within community associations.
Existing law requires that certain disputes be submitted to Alternative Dispute Resolution prior to a lawsuit being filed, either by a homeowner or by the association. This Bill establishes a two-tier process to address disputes prior to enforcement through the court system. As of 2005, associations are required to implement an informal process by which homeowners and boards “meet and confer” to discuss their disputes. The CLRC came to the conclusion that some association boards were not talking with homeowners regarding their disputes, and felt that by encouraging personal communication that many disputes would be resolved without court intervention.
If the dispute is not resolved through the informal “meet and confer” process, either the owner/member or the association must still submit the dispute to some form of formal Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) prior to filing a lawsuit in the Superior Court.