Law Offices of Tracy Ettinghoff

CALL FOR A CONSULTATION
949-363-5573

By

AB 1360 Proposed Legislation To Allow Electronic Voting for Homeowner Associations

The California Legislative Action Committee (CLAC) has sponsored new legislation which would allow Homeowner Associations to offer electronic voting to Members. The existing CID election procedure is intended to provide secrecy to members and involves an extensive process, including the provision of double stuffed ballots. HOAs are required to secure an inspector of elections to open and tally all ballots received in an election. A problem reported by CIDs, regardless of size, is the challenge of getting enough members of the HOA to participate in an election to achieve a quorum. For an election to be valid, the governing documents of an HOA generally require that a quorum of the members vote.In some cases HOAs are not able to achieve a quorum in the first election and must conduct subsequent elections, which they report is a costly endeavor. Ultimately this cost, like all costs to operate the CID, is borne by the members through their assessments.

Purpose of this bill: This bill would allow members of an HOA to opt in to electronic voting as an alternative to voting by paper ballot. According to the author, this bill seeks to increase voter participation in HOA elections while contributing to reductions in the use of paper and providing cost-saving opportunities for HOAs in the administration of elections. Members would be given the option to vote electronically. If they decided not to, they would receive a paper ballot and would vote according to the existing procedure outlined in law.

Secrecy of ballots: One of the main goals of the existing election procedure for CIDs is to maintain secrecy. The double stuffed ballots and independent third party inspector of elections are intended to insure that members are confident that they can freely vote without reprisal. At the same time, some HOAs contend that the existing process is cumbersome and costly and that apathetic members do not vote in elections, both of which mean HOAs incur extra costs for multiple elections. The challenge to allowing electronic balloting is balancing the desire for secrecy with the goal of greater voter participation.

Role of inspector of elections: This bill still maintains a role for the inspector of elections to receive, count, and tabulate the voting results from the electronic balloting service provider. In the case of paper ballot voting the role of the inspector is clear. With electronic voting, it is not entirely clear what type of record the electronic voting service provider would provide of the votes or how the inspector of elections would count and certify them.

Arguments in support: The board of directors of Laguna Woods Village supports this bill. Laguna Woods Village is made up of 18,000 senior citizens residing in 12,736 homes in three housing non-profit mutual benefit corporations, two condominium associations, and one cooperative housing corporation. The board of directors of Laguna Woods Village writes, “This bill would provide an option for an association such as ours to offer an opt-in electronic voting option that would afford an opportunity for increased convenience thereby increasing voter participation as well as reducing the cost of conducting elections which cost approximately $15,000 annually.”

Arguments in opposition: The Center for California Homeowner Association Law (CCHAL) opposes this bill and raises concerns that the bill could jeopardize the secrecy of the ballots. CCHAL contends the bill does not address several key questions, including how secrecy of the ballots will be maintained, how electronic ballots can be audited, and what the chain of custody is for ballots in electronic balloting. CCHAL maintains that the rationale for the bill is that electronic balloting increases voter participation, but that no research from a neutral third party establishes that this outcome will be achieved.

By

New Good Neighbor Fence Act of 2013

Adjacent neighbors frequently get in disputes about the responsibility to maintain fences between their properties. Sometimes the neighbors ask the Association to get involved. Although some CC&Rs specify the responsibility for maintaining these fences, Civil Code section 841 applies to the responsibility of adjacent owners to maintain fences that are on the property line. This code section has been completely re-written effective January 1, 2014. The new code section makes it easier to determine who is responsible for the costs of maintenance and provides a remedy if one neighbor feels that he/she is not responsible for half the costs. Here is the text of the new law:

(a) Adjoining landowners shall share equally in the responsibility for maintaining the boundaries and monuments between them.

(b)(1) Adjoining landowners are presumed to share an equal benefit from any fence dividing their properties and, unless otherwise agreed to by the parties in a written agreement, shall be presumed to be equally responsible for the reasonable costs of construction, maintenance, or necessary replacement of the fence.

(2) Where a landowner intends to incur costs for a fence described in paragraph (1), the landowner shall give 30 days’ prior written notice to each affected adjoining landowner. The notice shall include notification of the presumption of equal responsibility for the reasonable costs of construction, maintenance, or necessary replacement of the fence. The notice shall include a description of the nature of the problem facing the shared fence, the proposed solution for addressing the problem, the estimated construction or maintenance costs involved to address the problem, the proposed cost sharing approach, and the proposed timeline for getting the problem addressed.

(3) The presumption in paragraph (1) may be overcome by a preponderance of the evidence demonstrating that imposing equal responsibility for the reasonable costs of construction, maintenance, or necessary replacement of the fence would be unjust. In determining whether equal responsibility for the reasonable costs would be unjust, the court shall consider all of the following:

(A) Whether the financial burden to one landowner is substantially disproportionate to the benefit conferred upon that landowner by the fence in question.

(B) Whether the cost of the fence would exceed the difference in the value of the real property before and after its installation.

(C) Whether the financial burden to one landowner would impose an undue financial hardship given that party’s financial circumstances as demonstrated by reasonable proof.

(D) The reasonableness of a particular construction or maintenance project, including all of the following:

(i) The extent to which the costs of the project appear to be unnecessary or excessive.

(ii) The extent to which the costs of the project appear to be the result of the landowner’s personal aesthetic, architectural, or other preferences.

(E) Any other equitable factors appropriate under the circumstances.

(4) Where a party rebuts the presumption in paragraph (1) by a preponderance of the evidence, the court shall, in its discretion, consistent with the party’s circumstances, order either a contribution of less than an equal share for the costs of construction, maintenance, or necessary replacement of the fence, or order no contribution.

(c) For the purposes of this section, the following terms have the following meanings:

(1) “Landowner” means a private person or entity that lawfully holds any possessory interest in real property, and does not include a city, county, city and county, district, public corporation, or other political subdivision, public body, or public agency.

(2) “Adjoining” means contiguous to or in contact with.

By

Homeowner Associations May Not Be Sued Under Unfair Business Practices Act

In a new published decision, from the Appellate Court in Orange County, the court held that a Homeowners Association is not a business for the purposes of making a claim under Business & Professions Code section 17200 (Unfair Competition Law). In That vs. Alders Maintenance Assn. (2012), a homeowner disagreed with the results of a recall election. He first brought a small claims action, then a writ of mandate, then a lawsuit in Superior Court. Each action was unsuccessful. In the Superior Court case, a demurrer was sustained on the grounds that the action was untimely because it was not brought within one year from the date of the election, which is the statute of limitations. One of the causes of action in the complaint alleged that the Association was liable under Business & Professions Code section 17200 (Unfair Competition), which prohibits any “unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business act or practice.” The court sustained the demurrer to that cause of action also because a Homeowners Association is not engaged in a competitive business and the Unfair Competition law was not designed to apply to non-business claims. The court also held in this case that the Association was not entitled to recover its attorney’s fees, even though it felt that the lawsuit was frivolous. In most cases involving enforcement of the governing documents of an HOA, the Association would be entitled to recover its attorney’s fees, but this case did not involve the enforcement of any governing document.

By

Court Affirms Award of Substantial Attorney’s Fees Against Homeowner

The Second District Court of Appeal has published a new decision that reminds us of how risky it is to litigate with Homeowner Associations. Paul Lewow sued Surfside III Condominium Association claiming that it failed to perform its duties. The case went to trial and the Association prevailed at trial. Shortly after the court entered judgment against the homeowner, he filed a Chapter 13 Bankruptcy. About five months later, the Bankruptcy was dismissed.

The Association then filed a motion to recover all its attorney’s fees as the prevailing party. The trial court awarded $292,205.50 in attorney’s fees against the Homeowner and in favor of the Association. The Homeowner appealed, claiming that the Association’s motion was not filed in a timely manner. The issue on appeal was whether the Bankruptcy filing extended the time for the Association to file its motion to recover attorney’s fees.

The appellate court held that the pendency of the bankruptcy did not toll the time period for the filing of the motion, and that the Association had until 30 days after the bankruptcy was dismissed to file its motion to recover its attorney’s fees. Although filed a couple of days late, the trial court was authorized to grant an extension for good cause. Since the law was not clear whether the bankruptcy extended the time period or not, the trial court was within its powers to extend the date for filing the motion.

Now the homeowner has a judgment against him for $292,205.50. This is a lesson to anyone who wants to litigate against their homeowner association. If you lose, you could be liable for substantial attorney’s fees and costs.

 

By Leave a Comment

NEW LAWS AFFECTING REALTORS

New California Laws for 2012:

New laws have emerged that may affect REALTORS® and Homeowner Associations. Below are some of the new laws involving disclosures, licensing, small claims court, landlord-tenant, and Homeowner Associations.

Sellers Disclosing Water-Conserving Plumbing Fixtures: C.A.R. successfully sponsored a new law, effective January 1, 2012, revising the Transfer Disclosure Statement (TDS) to include a checkbox in Section A for the seller to disclose whether the property has water-conserving plumbing fixtures. The revised TDS also clarifies at the end of Section B that, by January 1, 2017, a single-family residence built on or before January 1, 1994 must generally be equipped with water-conserving plumbing fixtures. If, however, that single-family home is altered or improved on or after January 1, 2014, the water-conserving plumbing fixtures must be a condition of final permit approval. Water-conserving plumbing fixtures are low-flow toilets, shower heads, and faucets under section 1101.3 of the California Civil Code. C.A.R. intends to release a revised TDS form in November 2011 to comply with this law. Senate Bill 837.

NHD Companies Disclosing Mining Operations: Starting January 1, 2012, a company preparing a natural hazard disclosure (NHD) statement for a prospective buyer, as required for certain transactions, must also disclose whether the property is located within one mile of a mining operation, according to map coordinate data from the Office of Mine Reclamation. If a property is within one mile, the NHD company must give a specified notice that such mining operations may cause inconveniences. Senate Bill 110.

No Fee Bundling for HOA Disclosures: Beginning January 1, 2012, another C.A.R.-sponsored bill requires a homeowner’s association (HOA) to, upon written request, give an estimate of the fee for providing a prospective buyer with the governing documents of the common interest development and other required HOA disclosures. The fee must be reasonable based upon the HOA’s actual cost for procuring, preparing, reproducing, and delivering the HOA documents. If the fee is paid, the HOA cannot withhold the required HOA disclosures for any reason. Moreover, the HOA cannot bundle the fee for providing required HOA disclosures with any other fees, fines, or assessments. This law will prevent an HOA’s third-party document preparation company from bundling together both mandatory and non-mandatory HOA documents, and charging a higher fee for providing all the documents. The HOA is also prohibited from charging any additional fees

for electronic delivery of HOA documents, which must be available to a requesting party if the HOA maintains the documents electronically. Additionally, at a buyer’s request, the HOA must provide 12 months of approved minutes of the association’s board of directors meetings (excluding executive sessions). Delivery of the required HOA documents must be accompanied by a cover sheet itemizing the documents required by law and those provided. In November 2011, we intend to release a revised C.A.R. standard form Homeowner Association Information Request that complies with this requirement. Assembly Bill 771.

Brokers Designating Managers: Under another law that C.A.R. sponsored, effective July 1, 2012, an employing broker may appoint a licensee as a manager to supervise the licensed activities, clerical staff, and day-to-day operations of a branch office or division. An appointed manager who fails to properly supervise licensed activities will be subject to disciplinary action by the California Department of Real Estate (DRE). Appointing a manager, however, does not limit the employing broker’s supervisory responsibilities. The appointment of a manager must be in a written agreement in which the manager accepts the delegated responsibility. The employing broker must notify the DRE when a manager has been appointed or terminated. A licensee cannot be an appointed manager if the licensee holds a restricted license, is or has been subject to a debarment order, or is a salesperson with less than two years of full-time real estate experience within the last five years. Senate Bill 510.

Strengthening DRE Enforcement: Effective January 1, 2012, the DRE will have greater disciplinary authority to achieve its highest priority of protecting the public. A licensee will be required to report to the DRE within 30 days of any of the following: (1) disciplinary action taken by another licensing entity in California or another state, or by a federal governmental agency; (2) an indictment or information charging a felony against the licensee; or (3) a conviction of a felony or misdemeanor, including a plea of guilty or no contest. Failure to comply with this reporting requirement will be cause for discipline. The DRE’s broader disciplinary authority will also include, among other things, the ability to automatically suspend the license of anyone incarcerated after a felony conviction. For disciplinary actions, the DRE can conclusively presume without a hearing that a licensee’s conviction of murder, rape, lewd and lascivious acts, or a violation of dangerous drugs or controlled substances laws is substantially related to the licensee’s qualifications, functions, or duties. The DRE will also be able to enter into a pre-prosecution settlement with a licensee or applicant instead of issuing an accusation or statement of issues, but the settlement shall be considered discipline. Additionally, the DRE can request that a disciplinary order requires the disciplined licensee to pay reasonable investigation and prosecution costs. Failure to pay can result in non-renewal of license. The DRE can also require that a restricted licensee pays the costs for monitoring the licensee and monetary restitution to any person who sustained damages caused by the licensee’s misconduct. Again, failure to pay can result in non-renewal of license. Senate Bill 706.

DRE Issuing Citations and Fines: Starting January 1, 2012, the DRE can issue a citation and fine up to $2,500 if, upon investigation, it has cause to believe that a licensee has violated the DRE rules, or a unlicensed person has engaged in licensed activities. The person cited can request a hearing within 30 days from receipt of the citation. The citation and fine will be in lieu of DRE disciplinary action for the offense cited, and the citation will not be reported as discipline. However, failure to comply with the terms of the citation or pay the fine within a reasonable time specified by the DRE shall result in disciplinary action and non-renewal of license. The DRE may also apply to a superior court for a judgment in the amount of the fine and an order compelling compliance. All administrative fines collected will be deposited into the Real Estate Recovery Fund, which has, under Senate Bill 706, been renamed the Consumer Recovery Account. Additionally under this law, if the DRE delays the renewal of a license due to a pending disciplinary action, the license will not expire until the results of the disciplinary action are final or the license is voluntarily surrendered, whichever occurs first. This law also gives the DRE the authority to make public information confirming the fact of certain investigations or proceedings regarding a licensee, and to apply for a court order to enforce a subpoena if a licensee has refused to obey. Senate Bill 53.

Reporting Broker-Owned Escrows and Securities Qualification Exemptions: Starting July 1, 2012, a broker who conducts escrow activities for five or more transactions in a calendar year under the broker exemption from the Escrow Law, or whose escrow activities are $1 million or more in a calendar year, must file with the DRE an annual report of the number of escrows and dollar volume. The report must be filed within 60 days after the end of a calendar year in which the threshold is met. A failure to submit the report will be penalized at $50 per day for the first 30 days and $100 per day thereafter, up to $10,000. A broker who fails to pay the penalty may be subject to license suspension or revocation. All penalties collected will be deposited into the Consumer Recovery Account under the Real Estate Recovery Program. Effective January 1, 2012, this law also requires a broker who files certain information with the DRE for an exemption from securities qualification to submit a copy of that information to any investor who gives funds to the broker in connection with a transaction involving the sale of a series of notes (or undivided interests in a note) secured by real property under section 10237 of the California Business and Professions Code. Senate Bill 53.

DRE Suspending Largest Tax Delinquents: Commencing January 1, 2012, both the State Board of Equalization and the Franchise Tax Board must periodically make public a list of the 500 persons with the largest tax delinquencies in excess of $100,000. The lists must include, among other things, each taxpayer’s occupational or professional license numbers. The DRE and other state governmental licensing entities (with certain exceptions) must suspend and refuse to issue or renew an occupational or professional license for anyone on either tax delinquency list. Assembly Bill 1424.

Agents Handling Appraisal Issues: Beginning January 1, 2012, a licensee cannot knowingly or intentionally misrepresent the value of real property. Furthermore, a licensee who offers or provides an opinion of value of residential real property that is used as the basis for originating a mortgage loan cannot have any direct or indirect interest in the property or transaction as defined under Regulation Z (at 12 C.F.R. section 226.42(d)). A licensee or other interested party is also prohibited from using coercion, extortion, bribery, intimidation, compensation, or instruction to improperly influence a person preparing an appraisal or valuation for a real estate transaction. Senate Bill 6.

Increasing Small Claims to $10,000: Commencing January 1, 2012, the small claims court jurisdiction will generally increase from $7,500 to $10,000 for an action brought by a natural person. For a claim of bodily injury from a car accident, the increase to $10,000 will not occur until 2015. The dollar limit in small claims court for an action brought by a corporation or other entity will remain at $5,000. Senate Bill 221.

Revising the Notice of Sale: Effective April 1, 2012, a notice of trustee’s sale for the non-judicial foreclosure of one-to-four residential units must contain specified notices to the owner on how to seek postponement of the trustee’s sale, and to potential bidders on the risks involved in bidding at trustee auctions. Additionally, a lender or authorized agent must make a good faith effort to provide up-to-date information about sale dates and postponements to persons who want this information. The lender must also provide updated information through the Internet, a telephone recording, or any other means that allows free access at any time. Senate Bill 4.

Renting Out Condominiums: C.A.R. also successfully sponsored legislation protecting owners’ right to rent out their units in common interest developments. Starting January 1, 2012, an owner in a common interest development is exempt from any prohibition in a governing document against renting or leasing the unit, unless that prohibition was in effect before the owner acquired title to his or her unit. When renting out a unit, the owner must give the HOA verification of the owner’s acquisition date, and name and contact information of the prospective tenant. An owner’s right to rent under this law does not terminate for certain transfers of title, including, but not limited to, probate, spousal, parent-to-child, adding a joint tenant, and other transfers exempt from property tax reassessment. For sales transactions, the required HOA disclosures must include a statement describing any prohibition in the governing documents against renting or leasing. This law does not apply to rental prohibitions in effect before 2012. Senate Bill 150.

Tenants Smoking Ban: Beginning January 1, 2012, a residential landlord can prohibit the smoking of cigarettes and other tobacco products on the property, including any dwelling unit, building, other interior or exterior area, or the premises on which the property is located. For new tenants on or after January 1, 2012, the areas where smoking is prohibited must be stated in the lease or rental agreement. For preexisting tenants before 2012, a new provision prohibiting smoking is a change in the terms of tenancy that requires adequate written notice, depending on whether the tenancy is month-to-month or for a fixed term. Senate Bill 332.

Tenants Displaying Political Signs: Effective January 1, 2012, a residential tenant can generally display political signs related to elections, legislative votes, initiatives, and other political matters as specified, but the landlord can make reasonable restrictions as to location, size, and duration of display. In a single-family dwelling, a tenant’s political signs can be displayed from the yard, window, door, balcony, or outside wall of the leased premises. In a multifamily dwelling, a tenant’s political signs can be posted in the window or door of the leased premises. A landlord can restrict the size of a political sign to six square feet. A landlord can also prohibit a tenant from displaying political signs that violate local, state or federal law, or a lawful provision in an HOA’s governing documents. A tenant must remove political signs in compliance with time limits set by local ordinance, or absent such time limits, the landlord can reasonably restrict the posting of a sign to 90 days before an election or vote, and its removal within 15 days after the election or vote. Senate Bill 337.

Tenants Recycling Rights: Commencing July 1, 2012, a multifamily residential dwelling of five or more units (or a multifamily residential dwelling or business that generates more than four cubic yards per week of commercial solid waste as defined) must arrange for recycling services. The intent of this law is to address the challenges local governments are facing in reducing solid waste disposal in multifamily properties. The required recycling services are to be consistent with state or local laws, to the extent that these services are offered and reasonably available from a local service provider. The property owner of a multifamily residential dwelling may require tenants to source separate their recyclable materials to aid in compliance with this law. Assembly Bill 341.

HOA Board Meetings and Document Disclosures: Effective January 1, 2012, Associations must provide notice for a meeting that will be held solely in executive session to be given to members of the association at least 2 days prior to the meeting, except as specified. The bill provides that, if a member consents, notice may be given to the member electronically, and also deletes provisions that generally allow the board of directors to consider any proper matter at a meeting even if it has not been noticed as an action item for the meeting.
Meetings of the board of directors of a common interest development association may now be conducted by teleconference, as specified, by revising the definition of a meeting for these purposes. The bill requires that a teleconference meeting be conducted in a manner that protects the rights of members of the association and otherwise complies with other requirements
governing common interest developments. The bill also requires that the notice of a teleconference meeting identify at least one physical location so that members of the association may attend and would require that at least one member of the board of directors be present at that location. The bill also prohibits the board of directors from taking action on any item of business outside of a meeting. The bill prohibits the board from conducting a meeting via a series of electronic transmissions, such as electronic mail, except to conduct an emergency meeting, as specified. Associations must now make available agendas for meetings of the board of directors that are held in executive session. Senate Bill 563