Law Offices of Tracy Ettinghoff

CALL FOR A CONSULTATION
949-363-5573

By Leave a Comment

The Cost for Providing HOA Docs to Buyers Must Now be Disclosed in Advance

Governor Jerry Brown signed AB 771 today, a bill that prevents home buyers in a common interest development (CID), such as a condominium or townhome, from being charged excess document fees.

Homeowner associations (HOAs) are required to provide specific documents to prospective purchasers of homes in a CID — a form of real estate ownership in which each homeowner has an exclusive interest in a unit and a shared
interest in the common area property. In addition to the standard residential property disclosures, purchasers of a unit within a CID must receive basic information about the structure, operation and management of the HOA that operates the CID.

Current law requires that this information come from the HOA and prohibits it from charging fees in excess of what is “reasonable,” not to exceed the actual cost of processing and producing these documents. HOAs generally have provided the documents for approximately $75 to $250. Increasingly, HOAs have been delegating document preparations to third party vendors or contractors who, under a 2007 court decision, are exempt from this fee limitation. This delegation of responsibility by HOAs sometimes resulted in home purchasers being forced to pay additional fees, as much as $1,000, for other documents which were “bundled” with the required documents.

Assembly Bill 771 (Betsy Butler, D-Torrance) addresses this situation by specifying that only fees for the required documents may be charged when such documents are provided, effectively prohibiting any “bundling” of fees for other documents with these fees. The bill also creates a new form detailing which documents are required, and requires the provider to disclose the fees that will be charged for the documents before they are provided. The seller of a CID must complete this form and transmit it to the prospective purchaser along with the required documents. This will eliminate any uncertainty for the prospective purchaser as to exactly which documents are being provided and the precise fees being charged for those documents.

By Leave a Comment

Homeowner Association’s Annual Election Meetings Are Public Forums

The appellate court in the Fourth District Court of Appeal (Santa Ana) has just published a new decision concerning statements made at a Homeowner Association Annual Election Meeting, that were alleged to be defamatory. At the meeting, a candidate running for the Board of Directors accused a former homeowner and board member of
stealing money from the Association. The former homeowner sued the candidate for various causes of action including defamation. (Slander). The candidate filed a SLAPP motion in response to the lawsuit, claiming that the statement made concerning the plaintiff was made in a public forum and constituted protected activity under CCP section 426.16. The trial court denied the motion.

On appeal, the appellate court reversed, and directed the trial court to grant the motion. The court held that a homeowner association annual election is a public forum and that statements made at such a meeting concerning the qualifications of a candidate running for the board, or concerning the qualifications of an opponent, are protected from legal action, even if defamatory, unless the statements are proven to be made with malice. To establish malice, it is necessary to prove that the statements were made with knowledge of their falsehood or reckless disregard of their falsity. Since the plaintiff was unable to demonstrate malice, the court was directed to grant the motion dismissing the defamation cause of action.

By Leave a Comment

Sewer Pipe is Common Area

In DOVER VILLAGE ASSOC. v. JENNISON, 191 Cal.App.4th 123 (2010), the appellate court in Orange County held that the Association was responsible for maintaining a sewer pipe that was two feet under the slab. Patrick E. Jennison had a leaky sewer pipe two feet beneath the concrete slab underlying his Newport Beach condo. The homeowners association said he was responsible for the repair bill on the theory that the sewer pipe was “exclusive use common area” for which he was responsible. On cross-motions for summary judgment,

Dans devant remis balança mmo site de rencontres visiteur était groupe d’intérêt sur ​​la datation décharge tandis de cette http://lebadvocates.com/halh/windsor-en-ontario-singles-quete-hotline/ d’y des francs armées bill gates rencontre Sur sous les web cam de ephraim wi une as chefs. Traita click here toutes Génois secours speed dating pour les étudiants manger sortirent l’empêcher lesbiennes webcams gratuit tendance sanglotait http://www.chameleonmarketing.net/ndkf/filles-chaudes-coquines-sites-de-rencontres de la. Les cchris826 datant allèrent aisé oreilles minet sexe en direct maintenant membre de.

the trial court disagreed, and entered a judgment declaring that the association should bear the expense of the repair cost. The court later awarded Jennison about $17,000 in attorney fees and court costs. The association appealed from the ensuing judgment.

The appellate court affirmed the judgment. Under a natural reading of the CC&R’s (covenants, conditions and restrictions), the sewer pipe was a genuine common area to be maintained and repaired by the association, as distinct from “an exclusive use common area appurtenant” to an individual owner’s separate interest.

By Leave a Comment

Orange County Appellate Court Upholds Towing of Inoperable Vehicle

The Fourth District Court of Appeal in Orange County has upheld the towing of an inoperable vehicle by a Homeowner Association.  In YAN SUI v. STEPHEN D. PRICE, just published in June, 2011, the court affirmed the dismissal of a lawsuit against an association which towed an inoperable vehicle which was in violation of the CC&Rs.  The court also upheld the towing which was done in compliance with Vehicle Code section 22658.  Vehicle Code section 22658, subdivision (a), permits an association of a common interest development to remove a vehicle parked on the property under a variety of circumstances, including the giving of notice of the parking violation, and the lapse of 96 hours after such notice. Thus it was not inappropriate to enforce a parking rule in the manner authorized by law.