Dumpster Fire Election Questions

Feb 18, 2020 0 Views 0 Comments
We received so many questions related to elections that I'm dedicating this newsletter entirely to answering them. I have a backlog of questions on other issues and will cover them in future newsletters. -Adrian
Costly Bill. SB 323 is a disaster for associations. The mess created by Marjorie Murray's SB 323 is making attorneys rich & causing extra costs we can ill afford. It needs to be repealed ASAP. The cost of rewriting bylaws, going to a vote which will never pass and must be resent several times at a high cost plus attorney's fees, is a waste. How could such a measure ever be approved and why?? -Louise W., horrified property owner.
RESPONSE: Even though SB 323 is a dumpster fire, it's unlikely this burdensome bill will be repealed. At best, we can fix some of the more serious flaws and internal inconsistencies. CAI's California Legislative Action Committee (CLAC) is working on legislation to clean up the mess.
CAI-CLAC. Recognition should be given to CLAC's Executive Committee--they fought hard last year to stop SB 323 and came within one vote of defeating it. The Committee is currently working to undo some of the damage. Recognition should be given to:
Chair: Nathan McGuire, Adams|Stirling PLC
Vice Chair: Jeff Beaumont, Beaumont Tashjian
Treasurer: Julia Souza, The Management Trust
Secretary: Darren Bevan, Baydaline & Jacobsen
Co-Chair: Kieran Purcell, Epsten Grinnell & Howell
Co-Chair: Thomas Ware, Kulik Gottesman Siegel & Ware
PR: Natalie Stewart, FHA Review
Past Chair: John MacDowell, Fiore Racobs & Powers
In addition to our legislative advocate Louie Brown, there are delegates from around the state working on your behalf, you can see them here: CAI-CLAC Delegates.
CACM Advocacy. I understand the California Association of Community Managers (CACM) also worked to oppose SB 323. I'm not as familiar with their legislative activities but urge support of their efforts.
When the time is right, we will ask for readers' help to put out the dumpster fire created by the Center for California Homeowner Association Law (CCHAL).
Quorum of Voters. In our small association, we have a problem reaching quorum. We retain our existing board when that happens. Is this still allowed under SB 323? If it is and the only candidates for open board positions are members of the current board, do we still have to have the full-blown election process? -Sandy M.
RESPONSE: Sadly, yes. SB 323 does not make allowances for small associations, or for the inability to make quorum, or for uncontested elections. Until good legislation can be passed, the best way to address these problems is to amend your bylaws to eliminate quorum requirements for the election of directors and address elections by acclamation. We have done this for many associations and it has greatly simplified their elections. Not only does it reduce the cost and complication of elections, it alleviates some of the problems created by SB 323.

Delegate Qualifications. My association uses district delegates to elect the board of directors. Our management company advises that election requirements only apply to member votes and not delegates. Thus, additional qualifications for delegates are still permissible. One of the qualifications our HOA has for delegate candidates is that they attend a minimum of three general session meetings within six months preceding the distribution of the candidate interest form. Is this acceptable? -Jim K.

RESPONSE: Unfortunately, no. SB 323 impacts the election of delegates as well as directors. By statute, election rules must "specify the qualifications for candidates for the board and any other elected position." (Civ. Code §5105(a)(3).) That means mandatory and permissive qualifications for candidates and the procedures for electing them apply to delegates. You should talk to your legal counsel about amending your election rules.
Email Addresses. SB 323 added email addresses to the membership list information. Civil Code 5225 requires requests for membership list information be reasonably related to the requester's interest as a member. Is that still a requirement or can a member request membership information without giving a reason or for any reason whatsoever? Also, can an association's website list membership information without the member's explicit permission? -Lee B.

RESPONSE: Association's can still restrict how membership lists are used. For example, a member cannot request the list so he/she can solicit real estate listings. The request for a membership list must be reasonably related to a member's interest as a member--not for business purposes.
Websites. Member information should never be posted on public accessible websites. It exposes members to unnecessary solicitation and loss of privacy. Even with restricted website postings, members should be given an opportunity to opt-out before their information is posted.

Which Rules Apply? Our annual homeowner meeting is scheduled for February. Should we follow the new election rules or do they not apply until our 2021 election? -Leslie S.

RESPONSE: New election rules apply--they went into effect January 1.

Cumulative Voting. We received notice that cumulative voting will be used in our election even though our governing documents do not specify cumulative voting anywhere. Should we be using cumulative voting if our governing documents do not provide for it? -Angela S.
RESPONSE: No, cumulative voting should not be used. The Corporations Code states that "If the articles or bylaws authorize cumulative voting, but not otherwise, every member entitled to vote at any election of directors may cumulate the member's votes..." (Corp. Code §7615(a).)
Recall Elections. With SB 323, can a new board be elected at the same meeting if the recall vote is successful? Or, is the rigorous SB 323 nomination process required to elect a full new board after a successful recall vote? -Gail R.

RESPONSE: This is another problem created by SB 323. The timeline for electing directors is now much longer than the timeline for recalling directors. That means the two cannot be done simultaneously. As a result, the recall election must be conducted first. If successful, recalled directors remain in place until the election of replacement directors has occurred--a process that now takes up to 4 months thanks to requirements imposed by the Center for California Homeowner Association Law. This is really problematic and will need to be addressed by the legislature.
Election by Acclamation. By my reading of SB 754, it mandates acclamation for HOAs of 6,000 or more units, but does not deny it for smaller associations. The “shall” vs. “may” plays a role in this. What would be the purpose of wasting money on sending and counting ballots that are irrelevant? -Barb D.

RESPONSE: It would be wonderful if your interpretation of the statute were the case. Unfortunately, acclamation only applies to associations with 6,000 or more units--and only if they follow the requirements imposed by SB 323. See Civil Code §5100(g). With luck, the legislature will extend acclamation to all associations

Email Addresses. Can the board "opt out" all homeowners from the membership email list and request that anybody who wants to "opt in" to make their e-mail addresses available to other residents, can do so. We worry that some folks do not want their e-mail disclosed, but failed to opt out. -Tom W.
RESPONSE: With the steady increase in junk email, identity theft, malware and hacking, most owners do not want their email addresses made public without their permission. Unfortunately, SB 323 exposed email addresses unless members specifically opt-out. Hopefully the legislature will undo this provision.
QUESTION: A current board member who is re-running for election owns nine units. Is it legal for her to vote for herself nine times on the ballot? -Raghda Z.

RESPONSE: Yes. If she owns nine units, she has nine votes. Worse, if your bylaws allow for cumulative voting and there are three open seats, she has 3 x 9 = 27 votes she can cast for herself. I recommend your association amend your bylaws to eliminate cumulative voting.

QUESTION: If a board member resigns term and the board fills the vacancy, does that person remain for full remainder of the person's term or just to the next election? -Raghda Z.

RESPONSE: Normally, anyone appointed to fill a vacant seat serves for the remainder of the term assigned to that seat. You should check your bylaws to see if they require something different.

QUESTION: Our association paid our attorney to update our outdated CC&Rs and bylaws. With the passage of SB 323, we had to pay for additional updates. We understand the law has major flaws. Is the “clean-up” going to cause us to make more changes to our CC&Rs and bylaws? –Becky D.

RESPONSE: Yes, that's a possibility. SB 323 is the gift that keeps on giving. If the major flaws in the bill can be corrected, your election rules may need to be updated again.

QUESTION: We are a small association. SB 323 is written in legalese so that any normal person cannot understand the new code. It requires hiring a lawyer to interpret the contents and that poses a financial problem for small associations. Why is there not a version for layman to understand? Of course we want to comply with the new law but there should be a simple version explaining the new requirements. -Daniel G.

RESPONSE: SB 323 is so badly drafted that law firms around the state put in overtime untangling the impact of the bill. To help boards and managers interpret this dreadful legislation, many firms published summaries. You can find ours at Election Timeline and Candidate Qualifications. For a complete outline of the election process, go to the Election Menu.
QUESTION: Can candidates running for the board mail information about themselves to offsite owners? -Elaine B.
RESPONSE: Yes, they can. They can request a copy of the membership list and then send letters, postcards and flyers to members.
Ethics Policy: At our board meeting, the agenda included new directors signing an ethics policy adopted by the board in 2019. One carry-over director who signed it in 2019 claims the policy expired after twelve months because our governing documents don't permit contracts with a term longer than twelve months. I believe policies adopted by the board are in effect until modified or eliminated by the same or subsequent boards. They do not automatically expire at the end of twelve months. Is this correct? -Sue O.
RESPONSE: Yes, you are correct. Signing an ethics policy is not a vendor contract with a one-year limit. It's a commitment by a director to abide by the association's ethics policy. Your carry-over director's commitment to abide by your ethics policy remains in effect until he repudiates it. It does not expire after 12 months and leave him free to engage in unethical behavior.
Inspectors of Election. If we appoint a homeowner to act as our inspector of elections, will they be covered by our insurance? -Fred M.
RESPONSE: That is a really good question. In a recent article published by Ryan Gesell and Timothy Cline of the Cline Insurance Agency, the authors pointed out that protection of volunteer inspectors depends on whether the association's D&O policy covers volunteers for non-monetary claims and the person was specifically identified in the minutes as a volunteer.
They also raised the problem of whether a volunteer could comply with the extensive duties now imposed by SB 323. To minimize exposure to liability, Gesell and Cline recommend that professional inspectors of election be hired by associations. I agree.
Hiring a professional should shift liability away from the association. Unfortunately, professional inspectors also recognize the inherent problems in conducting HOA elections. As a result, many include language in their contracts requiring the association indemnify them from potential liability. 
As Gesell and Cline noted, since D&O policies extend coverage to volunteers, not professional inspectors, associations could find themselves paying to defend election results, should a claim arise. The authors pointed out that insurance policies are available for professional inspectors of election. Some offer the option of adding associations as additionally insured. Accordingly, boards should ask about insurance when hiring professional inspectors of election.
For more information about insurance issues, boards should check with their insurance agent or call Ryan Gesell or Timothy Cline at the Timothy Cline Insurance Agency.
ELECTION RULES. Election RulesAll associations must adopt new election rules to comply with SB 323. Failure to do so could subject elections to legal challenge and may result in new elections, monetary penalties and an award of attorney fees. To avoid this, contact us for new election rules.

We are looking for experienced attorneys to join ADAMS|STIRLING.
Candidates should have at least five years' experience as an attorney.
We offer growth opportunities and excellent benefits. Contact me at 800-464-2817 or by email.

Adrian J. Adams, Esq.

Boards can contact us for friendly, professional advice.

Adrian J. Adams, Esq.
Founder & Managing Partner

Meeting Without A Manager

Feb 9, 2020 0 Views 0 Comments

QUESTION: What happened to the Newsletter? I haven't received one at all in 2020 and can't find any on your website. -Sally B.

ANSWER: I'm glad you asked. In addition to the enormous amount of work generated the new election rule requirements, we've been busy hiring attorneys. Later in this newsletter is an introduction to attorney Megan Hall. Other introductions will be made in later newsletters.

Election Feedback Needed. Speaking of election rules, CAI-CLAC is reviewing how best to introduce much-needed clean-up legislation in the wake of the mess created by SB 323. To that end, they need to know if your association experienced any costs or problems due to the new election requirements. Please report your experiences to CAI's Legislative Strategy & Research Committee at [email protected]. Your feedback will help legislators understand why we need to fix this badly flawed legislation.


QUESTION: Our board properly posted a meeting notice and agenda 4 days prior to the meeting. Our manager said the meeting must be done over because she was not aware of the meeting and did not attend. Do we need to do everything over?

ANSWER: No, you don't need to repeat the meeting. The manager's presence at a board meeting is not what makes it valid. Board meetings are valid when they are properly noticed along with an agenda and a quorum of directors is present.

RECOMMENDATION: Check again with the manager, she must be concerned about a procedural issue. If it's still unclear, check with your association's legal counsel.


QUESTION: Our association's fiscal year begins February 1. As of mid-January, the board has yet to deliver a pro-forma budget for the upcoming fiscal year. Our CC&Rs require budget notice no less than 30 days before the start of the fiscal year. What are the consequences for failure to deliver the budget?

ANSWER: The Davis-Stirling Act requires the annual budget be distributed to the membership not less than 30 nor more than 90 days before the end of the association's fiscal year. (Civ. Code §5300(a).) Actually, it's more than the budget. It's a budget report consisting of the following:

  • a pro forma operating budget;
  • a summary of the association’s reserves;
  • a statement regarding any deferral of reserve item repairs;
  • a statement whether special assessments are anticipated related
     to reserves or reserve components;
  • a statement of how reserves will be funded;
  • a statement of how the reserves were calculated; 
  • a statement regarding any outstanding association loans; and

In addition, there are a number of policy disclosures that must be distributed to the membership.

Failure to Timely Distribute. Failure to distribute the budget report not less than 30 nor more than 90 days prior to the end of the fiscal year voids any increase in regular assessments approved by the board of directors. Any such increase in dues must then be approved by a majority of a quorum of members. (Civ. Code §5605(a).)


I am pleased to announce that attorney Megan Hall joined our firm.

Diverse Clients. Prior to joining ADAMS|STIRLING, Megan represented a diverse client base from the San Joaquin County to individuals in business. She dealt with employment issues, personal injury, CEQA, unlawful detainer and probate matters.

Litigation. Megan has extensive experience litigating matters for clients. In addition to mediations and arbitrations, she handled depositions, motions, summary judgments, trials, and settlements. Megan brings her diverse litigation background into corporate transactional matters for our clients.

Education. Megan earned a Bachelor of Arts with a major in Political Science and minors in Business and Communications from the University of Oregon. This was followed by a Juris Doctorate from the Santa Clara University School of Law in Santa Clara, California where Megan was on Law review and Honors Moot Court.

We are delighted to have such an experienced attorney join our team. If your association needs legal services, contact us for a proposal.


We are looking for attorneys to join ADAMS|STIRLING.

Candidates should have at least five years' experience as an attorney.

We offer growth opportunities and excellent benefits. Contact me at 800-464-2817 or by email.


Kudos. I spoke with you many years ago while I was still president and manager (for 10 years!) of an HOA. I have since moved on and am no longer in an HOA. However, I just want you to know how much I enjoy your newsletter, how informative it is, and will continue to do so as an attorney "wannabe." I can just observe that with the way the legislature and Ms. Murray are screwing things up, I'm glad I'm out! Keep up the good work! -Bob T.

RESPONSE: I can't complain too loudly about Marjorie Murray and her Center for California Homeowner Association Law (CCHAL) making such a mess of things. Ms. Murray has been a boon for business for law firms all over the state. I may send her a fruit basket. Unfortunately, the legal work she generates comes at the expense of 9 million homeowners who live in community associations.

Newsletter. Can you guys include a PDF attachment that shares the same info as each newsletter but it’s formatted so we can print it and save them in a binder for reference? -John H.

RESPONSE: We post newsletters on our website at: www.Davis-Stirling.com/Newsletters. You can always go there to print newsletters. We only post current and prior year's newsletters. Posting anything older runs into the problem of constantly changing laws which makes some information in our newsletters out of date. For current information, go to the Index on the Home page of Davis-Stirling.com to look up topics or use our website's Google search to find what you need.

ELECTION RULES. Election Rules I have a lot of feedback material to cover in my next newsletter. I could not get to it this week due to the large amount of legal work generated by Marjorie Murray's SB 323.

As previously noted, all associations must adopt new election rules. Failure to do so could subject elections to legal challenge and may result in monetary penalties and an award of attorney fees. To avoid this, contact us for new election rules.

Adrian J. Adams, Esq.

Boards can contact us for friendly, professional advice.

Adrian J. Adams, Esq.
Founder & Managing Partner

Dealing Drugs From A Unit

Dec 2, 2019 0 Views 0 Comments

QUESTION: Can a board be held liable if a unit owner has a permanent house guest that is dealing drugs from the unit?

ANSWER: Neighbors are understandably concerned for their safety when they see a stream of strangers going into and out of a unit--some of them rough looking. If a resident suffers harm or damage as a result of the drug-dealing resident, and the board had knowledge but did nothing to stop it, you can be sure the injured person's lawyer will include the association in his/her lawsuit.

RECOMMENDATION: If directors believe a unit is being used to deal drugs, they should notify the police of their suspicions. They can send a letter to the police department (or have legal counsel do so).

Notify Owner? It's possible that a letter by legal counsel to the resident may be sufficient to get the person to move their operations offsite. If the resident is a tenant, then a letter to the owner/landlord expressing concern and putting them on notice of potential liability may cause the landlord to take appropriate action.

Paper Trail. Beyond putting the resident on notice and notifying the police, there is very little the board can do. If the police do nothing and someone is harmed, the board will have a paper trail showing it took appropriate action to protect the membership. This should be sufficient to shield the association from potential liability.


QUESTION: We recently had a homeowner request permission to install an EV charging station in his garage. That wouldn’t be a problem except he wants to use it to charge a car outside his garage.

The Board feared that would represent a trip hazard as the cord would cross common area sidewalk. We consulted with legal and were told that was a legitimate cause to deny the request particularly in light of the fact that the owner did have the option of clearing out the garage and charging it inside.

ANSWER: Safety trumps. Your owner can have charging station in his garage, provided he clears it out and parks his car in his garage where he can safely charge it.

ABCs of HOAs
Adrian Adams will be speaking at an annual educational event open to all board members.
In addition to year-end legal updates by Adrian, Neda Nehouray will cover board management responsibilities and procedures, and Dr. Lori Baker-Schena will discuss ways for boards to strengthen leadership skills.
This free event by HOA Organizers will be held:
Date: Saturday, December 7, 2019
Time: 11 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.
Location: 11301 W. Olympic Blvd, Los Angeles

We are looking for experienced attorneys to join ADAMS|STIRLING.

Candidates should have at least five years' experience as an attorney.

We offer growth opportunities and excellent benefits. Contact me at 800-464-2817 or by email.


Kudos #1. Thank you so much, I love the newsletter! Happy Thanksgiving to you all. -Debra C.

Kudos #2. Thank you for all you do in keeping HOAs informed and protected. -Steve C.

Kudos #3. Thank you for providing Marjorie Murray’s email address. Thanks for your outstanding newsletter—it has been part of my Sunday routine for many years. -John P.

Kudos #4. I love to read your newsletter because there is so much information that I couldn’t get elsewhere. Thanks for what you do. -Yvonne G.

Kudos #5. Thank you for your newsletter. I hold the position of Treasurer for my HOA and several of our board members find great value in the information you provide. -Robert C.

SB 323. The problems and confusion created by Marjorie Murray's election bill continues to dominate the feedback I receive from readers. As with prior newsletters, I cannot print all the emails; there are too many. -Adrian

Nightmare Bill #1. I think I have a fair understanding of the impact of SB 323 on small HOAs like ours, but I'm not sure Marjorie Murray does. Please see the exchange I had with her. -David P.

[When questioned about her opposition to elections by acclamation, she responded with:] Our Center TOOK NO POSITION on the acclamation bill (SB754) after it left the Senate... Marjorie Murray, President & CEO, Center for California Homeowner Association Law

RESPONSE: Ms. Murray's response is misleading. You notice she said her organization took no position after it left the Senate. She neglects to disclose what CCHAL did before it left the Senate.

If you go to the website for California Legislative Information, click on the tab "Bill Analysis" and go to 4/18/19, you will find the following as reported to the Senate Housing Committee:

SUPPORT: Laguna Woods Village (Sponsor), California Association of Community Managers, Community Associations Institute - California Legislative Action Committee.

OPPOSITION: California Alliance For Retired Americans, Center For California Homeowner Association Law

The Community Associations Institute (CAI) supported election by acclamation, while Ms. Murray's organization opposed it. Next, go to bill analysis for the Senate floor vote dated 9/13/19. It has the following:

Arguments in Support: Laguna Woods Village, sponsor of this bill, states that it will provide much-needed relief from expensive and unnecessary elections for HOAs. The sponsor states that it has spent $60,000 on uncontested elections each year in the last two years alone, despite outcomes predetermined by the fact that there were more board seats available than there were people willing SB 754 to fill those seats. The cost of these elections directly impacts residents, as it increases monthly assessments.

Arguments in Opposition: Opponents state that allowing election by acclamation would enable an HOA board to ignore or prevent nominations by nonincumbents, then determine that no election is required due to an insufficient number of candidates. The Center for California Homeowner Association Law cites a number of reports from homeowners describing how they were either discouraged from running for a seat on an HOA board, or were prevented from running for a seat because they did not meet certain qualifications set by the board.

CCHAL Opposition: Ms. Murray's organization opposed elections by acclamation claiming it enabled boards to ignore nominations. How? Under the existing law, all qualified candidates are listed on a ballot, whether incumbent or not. Her CCHAL further justified its opposition by claiming some owners were not qualified. It's a bit disingenuous since one has nothing to do with the other. Moreover, CCHAL's own legislation (SB 323) sets mandatory and permissible qualifications which will prevent some owners from running for the board.

Opposition to Electronic Voting. In addition to training homeowners how to sue their associations and opposing elections by acclamation, Marjorie Murray's organization killed a bill six years ago that would have reduced the cost of elections by allowing electronic voting. Here is their opposition when AB 1360 was introduced:

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.

Clean-up Legislation. Hopefully, the Community Association Institute's California Legislative Action Committee (CAI-CLAC) will submit legislation next year to clean up the mess created by CCHAL. It may also be time to reintroduce electronic voting.

Unlike Ms. Murray's organization, CAI-CLAC lobbies for common sense legislation and opposes bad legislation. Readers who have not already done so should sign up for regular updates on legislation via CLAC-TRAC E-News. In addition, CAI-CLAC's Hot Bills page issues "Calls to Action" for support on critical bills.

Nightmare Bill #2. Seven of the HOAs I manage have only 4 or 5 members. Do we have to pay someone to attend their annual meetings to count 4-5 ballots??? -Jean K.

RESPONSE: CCHAL provided no relief for small associations. However, a provision in the existing law which carries over to 2020 allows a disinterested member to act as the inspector of elections and count ballots.

Nightmare Bill #3. Does the new elections law apply to unincorporated HOAs? I am in an HOA with eight units, and the board doesn’t think we need to follow the law because we are small and unincorporated. -Yvonne G.

RESPONSE: Being unincorporated does not give you any relief. I suspect many small associations will ignore the burdensome requirements of SB 323 and hope they don't get sued by a disgruntled homeowner.

Nightmare Bill #4. I sent an email to Marjorie Murray asking why she burdened homeowners with expensive legislation. She responded with: "What expenses do you believe are levied by SB 323? Please quote from the bill itself. -Marjorie Murray, President & CEO" -Robert C.

RESPONSE: That's a clever deflection by Ms. Murray. There are no dollar amounts in the bill--the costs are in the bill's requirements. Her bill requires rewriting election rules for over 55,000 homeowner associations in California. SB 323 is so convoluted that associations will need legal counsel to write them. She also voided all director qualifications in bylaws except those she approves. That will require costly amendments for tens of thousands of associations. In addition, her organization extended the election cycle to one-third of a year and added more expensive mailings to the process, thereby increasing election costs.

Finally, Marjorie Murray exposed everyone's email addresses to the entire membership. Associations will need to spend money sending and collecting opt-out forms for 9 million homeowners to avoid this unnecessary intrusion into their privacy.

If Ms. Murray thinks her bill imposes no costs on associations, perhaps she will volunteer to pay any expenses incurred by associations?

Nightmare Bill #5. Since the pre-ballot notice (distributed 30 days before ballots are mailed) includes the list of voters, what happens if there are new members between the date the notice is mailed and the election date? We used to set a Record Date by which someone had to be a member in order to vote. Can the pre-ballot notice be used as a Record Date? If not, do we need to re-notice the membership with an updated voter list? -Shelly D.

RESPONSE: Making the pre-ballot notice date the "record date" for determining eligibility for voting works for me. I don't believe you need to send updated voter lists when units change hands in the 60-day period leading up to the election.

Nightmare Bill #6. The requirement that election inspectors must have no previous contractual relationship with the association: once we secure a new election inspector, would we be required to find a different one every year? Yikes! -Shelly D

RESPONSE: Your contractual relationship with an inspector of elections is for the election for which the inspector has been retained and then terminates, thereby making the inspector eligible for future elections.

Nightmare Bill #7. With the votes being counted this coming January 17, 2020, what laws for election must be followed? Our call for candidates (November 2019) has already happened. -Teri P.

RESPONSE: In 2005 when the original election law was adopted, the legislature recognized it would take time to implement its requirements and delayed the effective date to July 1, 2006. Marjorie Murray's organization allowed no such grace period. That means their requirements take effect January 1, 2020. Even though your call for candidates took place under existing laws, your election on January 17 will be under Ms. Murray's strictures. I think you can proceed with your election as long as you appoint an independent inspector of elections.

Nightmare Bill #8. Marjorie Murray's bill is unconstitutional as it is dictating and pushing requirements into personal lives and HOA contracts. From what I understand, there are rights and processes in the law for individual HOAs to change their OWN rules. Why can one entity be allowed to change rules for all?? Is there any hope for push back on some of the questionable requirements of Marjorie Murray's bill? -Steve C.

RESPONSE: It's no secret I am unhappy with the harm done by Ms. Murray's organization. I understand CAI-CLAC is considering ways to clean up some of the mess created CCHAL. We will let everyone know next year when legislation is submitted.

Nightmare Bill #9. If a dedicated elections inspector using the resources of our management company sends out ballots as prescribed by our bylaws but no ballots are returned, can nominations from the floor be utilized to elect the three-member board? -Terry M.

RESPONSE: Yes. The bill allows for floor nominations even though they run contrary to other provisions in the bill.

Nightmare Bill #10. What can the HOA do if there are no members willing to serve on the board and current directors resign? I asked our management company and they only alluded to a state agency taking over receivership of our HOA. -Terry M.

RESPONSE: A receiver would be very costly for your association and would likely result in significant dues increases and/or special assessments. You really don't want to go down that path. See Collapse of an HOA.

Nightmare Bill #11. Our bylaws state that if there are not more nominees than open seats on the board, an election is not needed. I've tried to find this in the new election rules and it isn't clear if this is still valid. Our HOA has five units and we have never had more candidates than open slots. This new bill truly is a nightmare for tiny associations like ours. -Elaine L.

RESPONSE: If it's provided for in your bylaws, I believe election by acclamation is allowable. However, there is disagreement in the legal community on whether it can be done. See Uncontested Elections. The best way to eliminate uncertainty is to rally support behind a bill that would allow elections by acclamation for all associations.

Nightmare Bill #12. The board is getting ready to take a vote on new bylaws. What happens when the community vote fails due to not enough votes? -Nadine

RESPONSE: You could petition the court to approve the bylaws under section 7515 of the Corporations Code. This is different from a Davis-Stirling petition to amend CC&Rs. We have been successful obtaining court approval when apathy derails bylaw amendments. Contact us if you need assistance.

ELECTION RULES. Election RulesAll associations must adopt new election rules to comply with SB 323. Failure to do so could subject elections to legal challenge and may result in new elections, monetary penalties and an award of attorney fees. To avoid this, contact us for new election rules.


Fidelity Insurance. I enjoy the weekly newsletter. In the one I just received, you refer to a “Fidelity Bond.” Instead of a bond, associations will actually purchase an insurance policy that covers employee dishonesty (fidelity) plus non-employee theft. A bond is a three party arrangement. Insurance is not.

Preferred Terminology. The preferred terminology is a Fidelity/Crime policy. The policies are two sides of a coin. On one side is Fidelity/Employee Dishonesty and on the other side is non-employee crime coverage.

Standalone Policy. Associations should ask for a standalone policy. Although some of the required coverage is found in an association's Master Package Policy, they generally have minimal limits that do not comply with statutory or Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac requirements. More importantly, they often do not cover wire transfer fraud, computer fraud, or social engineering. -Joel W. Meskin, Esq., CIRMS, CCAL Fellow, MLIS, EBP, Managing Director Community Association Products, McGowan Program Administrators

RESPONSE: Joel, thanks for raising the point. Unfortunately, it will be difficult changing the terminology in California since the Davis-Stirling Act uses the term "Fidelity Bond" in Civil Code §5806. Maybe we can get a clean-up bill on this issue.


Banking. Your reader who commented on master banking policies is not precisely correct. They implied that the management company is a signer on the association’s bank account.

While many (maybe the majority of) management companies are signatories on the association’s account (which I think is very unwise for the association to allow), many are not.

We use the master banking policy for many good reasons (not the least of which is we can attest to the fact that the board signatories are who they say they are, which avoids members not having to show up at the bank and produce their ID every time the board changes.

However, we are NOT signatories on the association’s account, both by contract with the association and by our agreement with the bank. If the board does not want the managing agent as a signatory on their bank accounts, they should contractually prohibit that. However, that has nothing directly to do with the master banking policy. -Roy Helsing, The Helsing Group, Inc.

RESPONSE: The banking industry is constantly changing and some of the banking provisions in the Davis-Stirling Act may no longer be relevant. If someone could send me a full description of a master banking policy and its pros and cons as it relates to the HOA industry, I will add a page to the website.


ADUs #1. Can an owner convert his garage into a junior ADU and then never rent it out so he effectively increases the square footage of his house and its resale value? -Troy K.

RESPONSE: I had not thought of that angle. I suppose people could game the system to add living space to their houses, increase their property values, and push cars to their driveways and streets.

ADUs #2. Has there been any discussion of going the proposition route to repeal the ADU laws? -Tim S.

RESPONSE: Not that I'm aware of. Instead, there has been some interest in suing the state to stop the injection of ADUs into homeowner associations. If any associations want to band together for that purpose, let me know--I will put you in contact with each other.

Adrian J. Adams, Esq.

Boards can contact us for friendly, professional advice.

Adrian J. Adams, Esq.
Founder & Managing Partner

Management & Banking Security

Nov 24, 2019 0 Views 0 Comments

QUESTION: We use a third-party management firm to handle our accounting. They, in turn, have master relationships with several banks. Their clients become customers of their banks and the management company receives the benefit of lockbox services and computer integration. The management company is the master signatory, and associations designate their own signers.

We are a little concerned about the security and legality of this relationship. As a practical matter, the management company and any employees they designate are empowered to take any act with our account--write checks, wire money, open additional accounts, etc. This not only seems goofy to us it but at odds with the information we've read on your website about association bank accounts.

ANSWER: You’re right to be concerned, though it isn’t clear whether there's anything across the line here. There are disclosure requirements of affiliate relationships which should be verified. (See Manager Disclosure Requirements.) Also, the association should be comfortable with whoever is a signer on the account. You want to make sure the arrangement is acceptable to your Fidelity Bond insurance carrier.

Financial Oversight. After AB 2912 passed last year, certain electronic transfers require prior written board approval. The transfer of funds from reserve accounts have specialized requirements as well. If directors are uncomfortable with their current situation, the board should look into other arrangements.

Thank you to ADAMS|STIRLING partner
Nathan McGuire for answering this question.


We are looking for experienced attorneys to join ADAMS|STIRLING.

Candidates should have at least five years' experience as an attorney.

We offer growth opportunities and excellent benefits. Contact me at 800-464-2817 or by email.

Kudos #1. Love your newsletter—always extremely informative. And your sense of humor somehow makes all the legal stuff more palatable! -Maggie L.

Kudos #2. Thanks for one more great newsletter. -Finn M.

Kudos #3. Once again a great newsletter with clear advice and counsel. Thank you for taking the time to produce and disseminate this information. You provide excellent information. -Donna G.

Kudos #4. I thank you for all the valuable information from your newsletters. I forward it to our HOA members. -Nancy B.

Kudos #5. Thanks again for this wonderful newsletter. It's one of the few things I try to read every week. Brilliant caution about paying a member to be an inspector of elections. -Henry C.

Kudos #6. Thank you for your continued updates & providing HOAs insight on a multitude of areas associations are required to address; much appreciated! -Suzie W.

Kudos #7. Thank you for the newsletter -Henry S.


Aggressive Dogs #1. Your response on liability for dog attacks is very timely. I have an issue with a neighbor who walks his dog (a large German Shepherd) twice every day throughout our community, off leash. He has been warned by the HOA with no results. He has been warned twice by Animal Control, with no result. Unless Animal Control catches the dog, the owner is not fined. What other penalties can be assessed to enforce the HOA and city/county rules. -Sheila C.

RESPONSE: In addition to fines by Animal Control, the association can hold hearings and assess its own fines. A letter from your association's law firm will add more weight to your demand for compliance. If all else fails, the association can sue the owner.

Aggressive Dog #2. I would suggest that, in addition to rules, hearings, fines for dog owners, dog owners (any breed) must be required to carry insurance naming the association as additional insured. -Stephany Y.


Nightmare Bill #1. I have the answer about why an exemption of 6,000 or more units can conduct elections by acclamation. The Leisure World community (now called Laguna Woods) in South Orange County has a stock co-op with 6,323 units and they supported the bill touting that it would save money on their elections. -Kirk W.

RESPONSE: Election by acclamation clearly saves money. It's unfortunate that associations under 6,000 units have been denied this cost-saving measure.

Nightmare Bill #2. Does anybody know how many homeowner associations in California have more than 6,000 units and would qualify for this special treatment? -John W.

RESPONSE: I checked with Levy, Erlanger & Company LLP, a CPA firm in San Francisco that specializes in common interest developments and maintains a database of associations in California. Of the ~55,000 associations in the state, their database tracks 49,000 associations and publishes an annual report on the size, age, annual revenues and development types (condos, planned developments, tenancies in common (TIC), and stock cooperatives) in each county. Their database shows there are 55 associations with 6,000 units or larger. For more information, see "2019 California Community Association Statistics."

Nightmare Bill #3. So if an HOA with less than 6,000 units approves directors by acclamation (where the number of candidates does not exceed the number of vacancies), what is the harm? -Glen G.

RESPONSE: There is no harm. However,
because Marjorie Murray's CCHAL opposes this cost-saving measure, a disgruntled owner can sue and invalidate your election and have a fine levied against the association. CCHAL must think the world will come to an end if homeowners were to save a little money.

Nightmare Bill #4. I can hardly imagine a community with 6,000 units. Does this exception mean that if a community has 5,999 units, it wouldn’t qualify for election by acclamation? -Louise H.

RESPONSE: Yes, that's what it means. It makes no sense.
When the number of candidates is equal to or less than the number of open board seats, an association with 6,000 units can hold an election by acclamation but one with 5,999 units cannot. Since only 5,000 associations in the state qualify, the other 50,000 associations have to spend money to conduct meaningless elections. You might let Marjorie Murray know that you disagree with her opposition to elections by acclamation: [email protected].

Nightmare Bill #5. Our bylaws provide for 3-year terms and then one year off before you can run again. Under the new bill is the year off permitted? -Finn M.

RESPONSE: Unfortunately, no. Marjorie Murray's bill knocked out all candidate restrictions except the ones she deemed worthy. SB 323 does not allow associations to keep a qualified candidate from running for the board. It runs afoul of the bill. Therefore, term limits are voided. I know it's silly but that's what Ms. Murray's organization gave us.

Nightmare Bill #6. I live in a 55+ community. Our bylaws allow only owners living here to be on the board. Does 323 allow under-55 year-old, nonresident owner-investors to be on the board? -Brian H.

RESPONSE: Unfortunately, yes. Residency in a 55+ community and age are not on CCHAL's list of approved qualifications.

Nightmare Bill #7. Under the new law, can we still have write-in candidates and floor nominations?

RESPONSE: This is yet another problem with Marjorie Murray's bill. SB 323 has an internal conflict. It allows write-ins and floor nominations but it also requires that a list of candidates be published at least 30 days before ballots are distributed to the membership. You can't do one without violating the other. To eliminate the problem, we are eliminating write-ins and floor nominations from bylaws and election rules.

I'm sure Marjorie Murray and her Center for California Homeowner Association Law are proud of what they've done to the 9 million homeowners living in community associations: no term limits, elections cycles lasting 1/3 of the year, confusing deadlines, unresolved conflicts with director recall timelines, loss of homeowner rights to establish qualifications for their directors, loss of email address privacy, increased cost of elections, greater exposure to litigation, forced rewrites of election rules, a topsy-turvy document hierarchy, 55+ community restrictions upended, and elections by acclamation limited to associations with 6,000 units or more. You can send Ms. Murray an email expressing your gratitude: [email protected].

Election Rules. Election RulesAll associations must adopt new election rules. Any election conducted without new rules will be subject to legal challenge and may result in monetary penalties and an award of attorney fees. To avoid this, contact us for new election rules.


ADUs #1. I appreciated your discussion of the new ADU law. Your remarks about mobilehome parks might be a bit off. Most are built under Title 25 of the California Code of Regulations and are regulated by the Housing and Community Development Department. I haven't read that AB 68 overrules state housing regulations. -Henry C.

RESPONSE: I hope you're right. It would provide needed relief to planned development mobilehome parks.

ADUs #2. In our planned development, the CC&Rs define "Lot" as not being owned in common with other owners of lots in the development and not common area. Of our 134 residences, only five have garages on their lots. The remaining garages/carports are located in the common area. Since these are not a part of a residence, are they exempt from the ADU law? -Suzie W.

RESPONSE: If garages and carports are part of the common area, they are not eligible for conversion to ADUs. (At least for the moment--who knows what will happen when the legislature reconvenes.)


Elevated Structures. I manage an association that is underfunded in their reserves. They are only 20% funded and in desperate need of repairing their balconies. We had seven balconies inspected a few months ago and the structures underneath are in bad shape.

We want to raise the dues $40 per unit for 2020 because in 2014 they lowered the dues from $330 per month to $250 per month. In addition, we need a special assessment to repair the balconies ($5,000 spread over one year). I just received a petition signed by 27 owners saying they do not want to raise the dues and will not approve a special assessment.

Besides giving notice to terminate my contract, I can’t work with people like that. -Sharon H.

RESPONSE: Terminating your management contract is a smart move. When the balconies eventually collapse, lawsuits will fly. In addition, large special assessments will be levied--much larger than the one you proposed. If you were still managing the association, you would get caught up in the litigation even though you warned them. If the association somehow manages to avoid any collapses, the law will catch up with them in five years.

Beginning January 1, 2025, condominium associations will be required to conduct inspections of waterproofing systems (flashings, membranes, coatings, and sealants that protect the load-bearing components of exterior elevated structures) and load-bearing components six feet above ground, supported substantially by wood (such as balconies). All structures must then be reinspected every nine years. (
Senate Bill 326.)

Inspector's Report. The inspector must submit a report to the board providing the physical condition and remaining useful life of the load-bearing components and associated waterproofing systems, which must be incorporated into the association's reserve study.

Local Agency Notified. If the inspector finds that the exterior elevated element poses an immediate threat to the safety of the occupants, the inspector must notify the local code enforcement agency within 15 days of completion of the report.

Immediate Action. Upon receiving the report, the association must take preventive measures immediately, including preventing occupant access to the exterior elevated element until repairs have been inspected and approved by the local enforcement agency.

RECOMMENDATION: Homeowners should rally behind the special assessment and needed repairs. If they don't and they try to sell their units, they must disclose the known condition of their balconies and the likelihood of a large special assessment to address the problem.

If the membership rejects a special assessment, the board should impose a 20% dues increase this year, next year and the following year to raise funds to make repairs and rebuild reserves. If the membership votes them out of office, directors voting for the increased assessments will be insulated from future liability since they took steps to raise funds to fulfill their fiduciary duties.

Adrian J. Adams, Esq.

Boards can contact us for friendly, professional advice.

Adrian J. Adams, Esq.
Founder & Managing Partner

Liability for Dog Attacks

Nov 18, 2019 0 Views 0 Comments

QUESTION: What responsibility does an association have if a dog they know has a history of aggressive behavior attacks and injures someone? Can the victim sue the HOA for damages? What can a board do to deal with animals that have shown aggressive behavior so the HOA is not liable?

RESPONSE: Yes, an association can be sued if it fails to protect its members against a known foreseeable harm. (Frances T. v. Village Green.)

To minimize potential liability, whenever a board receives reports of an aggressive dog, it should call the owner to a hearing. In addition to a warning and/or fine, the board should require the dog be kept on a leash and muzzled at all times whenever it is in the common areas. 

RECOMMENDATION: To make sure the owner understands the seriousness of the situation, have your association’s legal counsel send a letter laying out the requirements and threatening to sue the owner if they are not followed.


QUESTION: Our board is threatening to charge homeowners with a misdemeanor if they go over the 3-minute limit in comment time. They quoted the penal code. Can they do that?

ANSWER: Boards cannot charge someone with a misdemeanor. It is outside their jurisdiction. A misdemeanor is a criminal offense levied by a governmental authority and punishable by a fine and/or incarceration in a local county jail. (Penal Code §647.)

At most, a board can adopt a rule that could result in a hearing and a penalty if the rule is violated. It's unlikely a board would fine someone for running over on their 3-minute open forum time. I can see it, though, for someone who tries to derail a board meeting by refusing to sit down and stop talking. Disruptive behavior can result in someone being ejected from a meeting and fined (following a properly noticed hearing).


QUESTION: We have a board that decided they wanted 2-year staggered terms. The bylaws established one-year terms. The board does not want to spend money amending their bylaws. Can they simply amend their election rules?

ANSWER: No, it requires a bylaw amendment. Two-year staggered terms are preferred because it provides continuity for boards. Simply changing election rules is not sufficient.
Except for the crazy SB 323 requirements, whenever there is a conflict between the bylaws and the election rules, the bylaws control. In a worst case scenario, a homeowner could sue the association in small claims court and have an election overturned if a board unilaterally adopts two-year terms.

RECOMMENDATION: With all the changes required by SB 323, now would be a good time to restate your bylaws.


We are looking for experienced attorneys to join ADAMS|STIRLING.

Candidates should have at least five years' experience as an attorney.

We offer growth opportunities and excellent benefits. Contact me at 800-464-2817 or by email.

Kudos #1. Thanks for your wonderful and informative newsletter. -Thom B.

Kudos #2. Thank you for the newsletter and for the tremendous effort invested in clarifying what the implementation of SB 323 will mean for all of us. -Denyse B.

Kudos #3. Thank you for all the newsletter information about legislative developments. -John W

Kudos #4. Your newsletter is quite informative and inspires a lot of inquiry. -Shelley G.

Kudos #5. Your website is so great! Thanks for all you do. -Victoria


New Laws #1. As a board, how can we get information about pending legislation before it becomes law? -Laurel S.

RESPONSE: Well-informed board members are the best board members. The "new laws" section of our website tracks bills during each legislative session and our newsletter periodically provides updates on critical bills. My partner, Nate McGuire, is Chair of CAI-CLAC, which lobbies for common sense legislation and opposes bad legislation. CAI-CLAC provides regular updates via CLAC-TRAC E-News subscription. Their Hot Bills page issues "Calls to Action" for support on critical bills. You can also follow CAI-CLAC on Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn. Everyone needs to get involved if we hope to stop Marjorie Murray's destructive bills.

New Laws #2. The article on adding "veteran or military status" to the front of our CC&Rs didn't include the recent requirement to also add "victim of abuse status" which you mentioned in an earlier newsletter. Is this no longer required? -Sue O.

RESPONSE: Victim abuse status did not pass. I thought it had but was misinformed. So, the only change required on the cover page is to add “veteran or military status” to the list of things CC&Rs can’t discriminate against.


Nightmare Bill #1. Could a member of the association be paid to serve as inspector of election? -Denyse B.

RESPONSE: There is nothing in SB 323 that prevents an association from paying a homeowner to be the inspector of elections. However, once paid, the homeowner is no longer a volunteer and would not be covered by the association's insurance in the event there is litigation over the election. If the association is going to pay someone to be an inspector, it should hire a company that handles elections professionally.

Nightmare Bill #2. Under the new law, can the management company do all the paperwork and mailings, and hire the inspector only for the tabulation? -James S.

RESPONSE: Management companies (under contract to manage the association) can facilitate an election under the direction of an independent inspector by sending out the notice of election, requesting nominations, sending out ballots and election rules, and receiving ballot envelopes addressed to the inspector.

Custody of Ballots. Per the statute, sealed ballots, signed voter envelopes, the voter list, proxies, and candidate registration list must be in the custody of the inspector or at a location designated by the inspector until after the tabulation of the vote, and until the time allowed for challenging the election has expired, at which time custody is transferred to the association.

Tabulating Votes. The only things a management company cannot do is verify signatures and count and tabulate votes. That must be done by independent third parties.

Nightmare Bill #3. When a resident does not follow our CC&Rs, should that individual be considered for a board position? What if they are delinquent in their assessments? -S. Cohen

RESPONSE: Marjorie Murray's CCHAL decided that scofflaws can serve on boards. If the person is delinquent in paying their assessments and has entered into a payment plan, they can serve on the board. Unfortunately, SB 323 does not require the delinquent owner abide by the payment plan, only that they entered into one. Once on the board, they can abandon the plan--another example of poor drafting by CCHAL. 

Nightmare Bill #4. Why just blame Senator Wieckowski for SB-323? Although he introduced it, a majority of legislators passed it, along with other ill-conceived and confusing legislation.

RESPONSE: Blame can be placed with Marjorie Murray's organization. They created this burdensome and poorly drafted bill and put it in Senator Wieckowski's hands and then convinced him it would somehow help homeowners. CCHAL is imposing its will on 9 million homeowners. A fundamental concept in the Declaration of Independence is seeking the consent of the governed. CCHAL did not seek the consent of homeowners when they cobbled together SB 323.

Nightmare Bill #5. Where does it say that if we want to be nominated we have to submit 200 words about our personal life, work, experience? Is this a normal practice? -Gina K.

RESPONSE: The provision is probably in your election rules. It is fairly common to allow candidates to write something about themselves. If you choose not to submit anything, election materials will simply list your name as a candidate and nothing more.

Nightmare Bill #6. What was the reason for only allowing 6,000-unit associations to use election by acclamation? There can't be very many HOAs that qualify. That smells like a back room special interest exemption for somebody. It's nuts. The HOAs that have the most trouble finding candidates are the smaller and medium size HOAs. An HOA with 6,000 units should not have any difficulty finding five people to serve on a board. -John W.

RESPONSE: You're right, it doesn't make any sense. All associations should be allowed to use election by acclamation when the number of candidates is less than or equal to the number of open seats. It avoids the unnecessary expense of mailing ballots, struggling to meet quorum, and then holding a meeting to open and count ballots when everyone already knows the outcome. Unfortunately, Marjorie Murray's organization is against simplifying elections and reducing expenses. For some reason, an exception was made for associations with at least 6,000-units.


ADUs #1. You didn't answer the question posed last week by Gary S:

"When I bought a home in my association I agreed to the CC&Rs and rules in place at that time. If the state changes those rules doesn’t that invalidate the contractual obligations that I have to follow them? I didn’t agree to these changed rules at the time of purchase. I never would have bought my house under these rules. We are no longer in charge of our own investments." -Lisa B.

RESPONSE: The legislature routinely overrides HOA CC&Rs, as they did with SB 222, which invalidates any restrictions that discriminate against veterans or military status. However, the ADU law may fall into a different category because of its impact on property values. Some equate it to a "taking" of an owners' property values. Because of that, one association has expressed an interest in mounting a legal challenge, i.e., suing the State of California, to stop fundamentally changing the character of their association by forcing ADUs into their development.

As one attorney recently noted, the ADU law upends the entire CEQA process if a city originally approved a subdivision based in part upon a traffic study that the subdivision would add X vehicles to the adjacent roadways, and now every garage in the development could become a new residence with another vehicle. (CEQA is the California Environmental Quality Act, which requires agencies to identify the environmental impacts of their actions and to avoid or mitigate those impacts.)

Many agencies,
in conjunction with input from police and fire departments regarding emergency services, mandate that CC&Rs require garages be used for parking. If ADUs force vehicles onto streets plus increase the number of vehicles, it could impact emergency vehicle access to residences. The negative consequences of ADUs could be substantial.

ADUs #2. Our HOA is in an isolated area with its own water system that has limited water resources and has required members to reduce usage during the recent drought years. If additional units were built on individual lots, the demand would exceed the water company's ability to meet the demand. Are there any special considerations that allow us to limit ADUs? -Heidi C.

RESPONSE: If water is in limited supply, it could preclude the construction of ADUs in your community. You should raise this with your local agency so they don't issue ADU permits.

ADUs #3. I realize the ADU bill uses the term "planned development." Are you sure that CC&Rs saying our townhouse development is a condominium association controls? -Lissa C.

RESPONSE: Because the bill specifically references planned developments and and additionally refers to lots zoned for single-family residential use, condominium associations are safe. If your CC&Rs structured your townhouses as condominiums, the ADU bill does not apply. However, that will not stop owners from trying to convert their garages into ADUs, nor will it prevent a local agency from mistakenly issuing permits. Boards of directors of townhouse condominium associations will need to notify members they cannot convert their garages into ADUs, and then be vigilant to make sure no one tries to sneak one in.

ADUs #4. The senior mobile home park for which I work has a maximum 70% coverage of lot use requirement. Does this new law regarding ADUs override these restrictions? -Mary W.

RESPONSE: Yes, it does. In January, your should check with your local agency to see if they deem your park eligible for ADUs.

ADUs #5. We have a community of manufactured homes where each homeowner owns the land upon which their home sits, along with a interest in the common area. Insurance companies identify our community as a mobilehome park. Is the ADU law applicable to manufactured home communities? -Victoria

RESPONSE: The community you describe is a planned development, which means the ADU law applies. It doesn't matter what your insurance company calls you, it's the legal structure that matters. Unless your local agency decides differently, ADUs will be allowed in your community.

ADUs #6. We have a lift station that was designed to accommodate 124 single family homes, the number of homes in our development. Additional sewage would cause stress on our system and put it in jeopardy of failure. Can we deny ADUs because of this issue? -Myrna W.

RESPONSE: You should make sure your local agency knows about your sewage limitations so they don’t issue any ADU permits. Then, make sure your members know they cannot convert garages or build ADUs on their lots.

ADUs #7. I manage 5 mobile home parks, We have setback spacing for safety reasons due to combustible items. Will smaller ADU setbacks control? -Shelley G.

RESPONSE: Unfortunately, yes. The new ADU laws require local agencies to prepare relaxed regulations expediting the approval and construction of ADUs. It includes reduced setback requirements. Hopefully, your local building department will take safety into consideration and decide that ADUs cannot be built in your parks. Talk to them and make sure they know about your safety concerns.


Day Care #1. This bill is also ill-conceived. It not only causes nuisance noise for the poor owners who have to live next to a family day care, it imposes excessive expense for water usage that all homeowners pay for, and excessive traffic coming into and out of the complex that is prohibited for other at-home businesses. Why aren't the HOA advocacy organizations looking out for our best interests? -Paul

RESPONSE: Some bills cannot be stopped. Legislators stampede to approve them because they think it supports the greater good, regardless of any negative consequences that result.

Day Care #2. I beg to differ with your characterization of the new law permitting an increase in the number of children permitted in daytime child care businesses in HOAs. You state that SB 234 “does some good.”

For whom? The business owner making money intruding on their neighbors with the noise and traffic from fourteen parents dropping off children in a neighborhood with 30 ft wide streets, no driveways and no parking spaces?

How on earth is it not a disruption of the enjoyment of my home to have 14 noisy toddlers running around the.backyard of a tiny lot (15 x 30) next door for 10 hours a day, 5 times a week only eight feet from my back door??

The limit on eight children was bad enough in my opinion but a necessary accommodation to the dismal state of affordable child care availability. Fourteen is too much. Twenty eight car trips a day to one unit? Yikes! -Michele J.

RESPONSE: You raise valid concerns. Unfortunately, the legislature seems to think they can keep piling more and more burdens on associations. At some point, people will decide they've had enough and move to surrounding states where they have some modicum of control over their property and lives. California is a poorly managed state. I don't see that changing any time soon.


Defect Claims. Making it easier for HOAs to file construction defect lawsuits is just another barrier to creating new housing supply in California....just one more reason to think twice before moving forward with a housing project. -Scott M.


Elevated Structures. You clarified in last newsletter only a condominium is affected by the new law requiring inspection of elevated structures. I live in an HOA with attached townhomes on individual lots. I am told by management that because our units are attached, the new law applies. Please confirm. -Lea B.

RESPONSE. If each townhouse is on its own lot, you are a planned development. That means balconies are not common area elements. Unless your governing documents state otherwise, each townhouse owner is responsible for maintaining, repairing and replacing his/her own balcony, which means SB 326 does not apply.

Adrian J. Adams, Esq.

Boards can contact us for friendly, professional advice.

Adrian J. Adams, Esq.
Founder & Managing Partner

Additional Legislation

Nov 10, 2019 0 Views 0 Comments

Following are a few more pieces of legislation affecting California's associations.

Unlike the election bill pushed by the Center for California Homeowner Association Law (CCHAL), the following bills actually do some good. -Adrian


To discourage construction defect claims against developers, many insert language in CC&Rs for new developments that require approval of the membership before any legal action can be filed. They hope that apathy and fear of litigation will block any such authorization.

Governor Newsom signed Senate Bill 326 giving boards of directors the authority to pursue construction defect claims without first going to the membership. In addition, any provisions in governing documents which restrict the board’s authority to retain legal counsel or incur expenses pursuing a construction defect claim are now unenforceable.


Senate Bill 222 makes housing discrimination on the basis of veteran or military status against public policy. Associations must add to the first page of their CC&Rs the following stamp in at least 14-point boldface type:

“If this document contains any restriction based on race, color, religion, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, familial status, marital status, disability, veteran or military status, genetic information, national origin, source of income as defined in subdivision (p) of Section 12955, or ancestry, that restriction violates state and federal fair housing laws and is void, and may be removed pursuant to Section 12956.2 of the Government Code. Lawful restrictions under state and federal law on the age of occupants in senior housing or housing for older persons shall not be construed as restrictions based on familial status.”
Senate Bill 234 extends the protection that is already applicable to small family daycare homes (8 children) to large family daycare homes (14 children).
CC&Rs cannot restrict the use or occupancy of property as a family daycare home. This applies to condominiums and townhouses as well as single family detached homes.
A family daycare home is a facility that regularly provides care, protection, and supervision for 14 or fewer children, in the provider’s own home, for periods of less than 24 hours per day, while the parents or guardians are away.

We are looking for experienced attorneys to join ADAMS|STIRLING.

Candidates should have at least five years' experience as an attorney.

We offer growth opportunities and excellent benefits. Contact me at 800-464-2817 or by email.
ABCs of HOAs
Adrian Adams will be speaking at an annual educational event open to all board members.
In addition to year-end legal updates by Adrian, Neda Nehouray will cover boards' management responsibilities and procedures, and Dr. Lori Baker-Schena will discuss ways for boards to strengthen leadership skills.
This free event by HOA Organizers will be held:
Date: Saturday, December 7, 2019
Time: 11 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.
Location: 11301 W. Olympic Blvd, Los Angeles

Kudos #1. Thank you for the hours spent trying to make clear the provisions in SB 323, which seem to be a step backwards for HOAs. These new laws add to the already high burden of our volunteers. -Netti J.

Kudos #2. Thank you so much! I just signed up for both electronic publications! I appreciate your help and support and will encourage my other board members to subscribe as well! -Renee J.

RESPONSE: We need to get the word out to as many homeowners as possible so we can mount letter writing campaigns and phone calls when Marjorie Murray floats her next bill. Encourage board members and owners to sign-up for our newsletter by entering their email address here.


ADU #1. I can’t believe they applied ADUs to associations! Our complex is going to look like a favela if everybody starts doing this. -Scott S.

RESPONSE: I had to look up favela. It means a Brazilian shack or shanty town; a slum. Assembly Bill 670 will clearly increase the density in associations. Let's hope it does not turn them into favelas.

ADU #2. Single family residential home tracts could jump 50% in population density. Where do the cars go? Argggggh. Wait until residents want to convert their parking spaces into residences. -Rick

RESPONSE: Let's not give legislators any ideas.

ADU #3. Could someone could put an ADU on their patio? -Dorethia M.

RESPONSE: Yes, that's possible. We will learn more once local agencies release their guidelines in January.

ADU #4. When I bought a home in my association I agreed to the CC&Rs and rules in place at that time. If the state changes those rules doesn’t that invalidate the contractual obligations that I have to follow them? I didn’t agree to these changed rules at the time of purchase. I never would have bought my house under these rules. We are no longer in charge of our own investments. -Gary S.

RESPONSE: Census data shows that more people are moving out of California than are moving in. With ADUs and SB 323, more people may be hitting the exits.

ADU #5. Can associations impose dues on ADUs? Planned communities should be able to charge renters the same association fee as all other dwellings. Even though dues are typically per lot, this needs to change and HOA dues should be charged per dwelling. -Steve C.

RESPONSE: I understand the need to address the increased burden ADUs will place on associations but you can't charge renters assessments. Your CC&Rs allow you to charge per lot, not per dwelling. However, you might be able to charge lot owners with ADUs an impact fee. (Watts v. Oak Shores.) You should run it by your association's legal counsel.

ADU #6. How will mobilehome and manufactured home communities be affected? Will they be required to allow ADU and JADU construction? -Marie W.

RESPONSE: No exception was made for mobile/manufactured home parks. If it's legally structured as a planned development and there is room on the lot for an ADU, it will apply.

ADU #7. Do age restrictions for 55+ developments apply to residents of ADUs? -John M.

RESPONSE: The legislation does not affect age restrictions. Your 55+ restrictions can be applied to residents of ADUs.

ADU #8. We have eight condos but we think they are townhouses. Is it possible for us to change our condos to townhouses? -Yvonne G.

RESPONSE: Townhouses are a form of construction and don't have anything to do with the legal structure of your association. Townhouses can be condominiums or single-family homes. You have to look to your CC&Rs to see how the developer structured ownership.

ADU #9. Can ADU guidelines be written into our operations procedures or must they be adapted into our CC&Rs? -John R.

RESPONSE: You don't need to amend your CC&Rs, guidelines can be added to your rules and regulations.

ADU #10. Our small HOA consists of 24 townhome style units (units share common side walls) with garages. We pay property taxes on our improvement (our individual units) and pay 1/24 of the taxes on the common area. Does the ADU law apply to us? -Debra G.

RESPONSE: You will need to look at your CC&Rs to see if you're legally structured as condominiums or a planned development. If you are condominiums, you're safe. If you are a planned development...

ADU #11. We have one homeowner who created an illegal JADU earlier this year. Will she still be required to provide the HOA with a copy of the lease showing an initial term of at least one year, tenant’s name(s) and contact information, etc. -Judy W.

RESPONSE: Yes, rental requirements such as you describe will apply to ADUs the same as other rentals. Owners will need to provide information about the renter and a copy of the lease to show that lease terms are longer than 30 days.

ADU #12. The real nightmare is homes & spaces that could be homes remaining empty for months until the fortunate owner spends some time enjoying their excessive home ownership. People need homes. People that have extra space need to realize their responsibility to the rest of humanity. -Trisha A.

RESPONSE: There are solutions other than ADUs imposed on associations. It's unfortunate the legislature didn't explore them.

ADU #13. What is an ARC document? I know bylaws, CC&Rs, and Rules and Regs. We are a small self-managed HOA. -Bob S.

RESPONSE: ARC stands for Architectural Review Committee. Some associations include architectural guidelines in their rules and regulations. Others, usually large associations, have a separate document for architectural guidelines.

ADU #14. Our CC&Rs state one residence per lot. Can we require that the primary residence be built before any ADU can be authorized? -Pam H.

RESPONSE: Probably not. The bill defined an ADU as an attached or detached residential dwelling unit located on a lot with a proposed or existing primary residence. It appears the owner of an empty lot can build a rental ADU on his/her lot without first building a primary residence.


Elevated Structure Inspections. Does the inspection of balconies and other elevated structures apply to planned developments? -L.B.
RESPONSE: No, it only applies to condominiums.

Nightmare Bill #1. In last week's newsletter, you wrote that term limits are no longer valid. Is there anything we can do to reinstate them?

RESPONSE: A strict reading of the statute knocks out term limits. Somebody needs to talk to Senator Wieckowski.

Marjorie Murray's Center for California Homeowner Association Law (CCHAL) voided everything that limits candidate nominations. Her organization then (i) mandated that candidates be an owner and (ii) gave associations their permission to adopt four specific qualifications. Since term limits prevent incumbent directors from being nominated, they will be unenforceable beginning January 1, 2020.

Nightmare Bill #2. What about 55+ communities where a 25-year old owns a unit via inheritance who cannot live in the unit due to age restrictions but wants to run for the board?

RESPONSE: Marjorie Murray's organization obviously did not think this through. Any requirements that board members in a 55+ community be at least 55 or live in the community are void on January 1, 2020. Senior communities can still enforce age restrictions on residents but not on board members.

Nightmare Bill #3. Everyone seems to have a different timeline for elections. Which one is right? -Mike K.

RESPONSE: I’m aware of four different timelines being circulated by law firms and management companies. The election requirements range from 105 days to 120 days. Marjorie Murray's bill is so badly drafted that no one can figure out how to comply with it. The fact that respected law firms arrive at different timelines does not bode well for associations struggling to comply with this deeply flawed legislation.

Nightmare Bill #4. I met with Sen. Wieckowski's office and they couldn't give me a straight answer regarding email privacy. I was told that the governor wants an additional bill addressing email early next year to make it so members would have to opt in, rather than opt out. -Rick S.

RESPONSE: Hopefully, Senator Wieckowski and Governor Newsom will do something to undo the chaos created by Marjorie Murray's bill. SB 323 needs to be repealed. At a bare minimum, it needs serious clean-up legislation.

Nightmare Bill #5. We adopted election rules that eliminate cumulative voting, quorum requirements, floor voting, and proxies, and allow for election by acclamation in uncontested elections. I see this mentioned for HOAs with 6,000 or more members. Does this mean we have to revert to secret ballots? If so, can we keep all the other options? -Netti J.

RESPONSE: In my opinion, your new provisions are valid. Voting by acclamation eliminates meaningless elections when the number of candidates is equal to or less than the number of open seats. Unfortunately, Marjorie Murray's organization blocked it a few years ago for HOAs but allowed it this year for associations with 6,000 or more members. Even so, I think voting by acclamation can be done if it is in your governing documents. However, there is a split in the legal community on the issue and boards should follow the advice of their legal counsel. See "Uncontested Elections."

Nightmare Bill #6. I'm still unclear about our management company's role in our elections. -R.A.

RESPONSE: Management companies can continue to be involved in elections, they just can't serve as inspectors of election.

Nightmare Bill #7. This legislation seems so ill conceived and irresponsible. Is is possible to create a court challenge on behalf of a large number of HOAs? -Jim P.

RESPONSE: The only litigation we are likely to see are more election challenges. The election timeline is absurd and associations will get tripped up by it. Senator Wieckowski is the one person who can clean up this mess. If enough people start knocking on his door, he might allow clean-up legislation.

Nightmare Bill #8. Regarding nominations from the floor, if a ballot is irrevocable once turned in, it rules out nominations from the floor. -Hank J.

RESPONSE: Nominations can still be made from floor and those who have not yet cast ballots can vote for floor nominees. However, as a practical matter, it makes floor nominations irrelevant.

Nightmare Bill #9. Does SB 323 apply to all HOA elections or just board member elections? -Hank J.

RESPONSE: It applies to all elections requiring secret ballots. As required by Civil Code §5100(a), the following matters must be voted by secret ballot:

  • special assessments over 5% and regular assessments over 20%,
  • election and removal of directors,
  • amendments to the governing documents, and
  • grant of exclusive use of common area property.

Nightmare Bill #10. The author of this abomination should be investigated. -H.J.

RESPONSE: It's sad that one person can cause this level of damage because she has the ear of one legislator.


Election Rules. All associations must adopt new election rules. Any election conducted without new rules will be subject to legal challenge and may result in monetary penalties and an award of attorney fees.

CONTACT US if you would like us to prepare new election rules for your association.

Adrian J. Adams, Esq.

Boards can contact us for friendly, professional advice.

Adrian J. Adams, Esq.
Founder & Managing Partner

Accessory Dwelling Units

Nov 3, 2019 0 Views 0 Comments

As reported in our October 13 newsletter, Governor Newsom signed Assembly Bill 670 authorizing accessory dwelling units. The Governor's goal is to create a large stock of low-income rentals throughout California as quickly as possible.

The companion legislation is extensive and will create significant challenges for planned developments when it goes into effect January 1, 2020. Following is a summary of key points.

Defined. An “Accessory Dwelling Unit” (ADU) means an attached or a detached residential dwelling unit that provides complete independent living facilities for one or more persons and is located on a lot with a proposed or existing primary residence. It includes permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation on the same parcel as the single-family or multifamily dwelling is situated.

A “Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit” (JADU) means a unit that is no more than 500 square feet in size and contained entirely within a single-family residence. A JADU can include separate sanitation facilities, or may share sanitation facilities with the existing structure.

Garage Conversions. The legislation authorizes garage and carport conversions into ADUs or JADUs (depending on size) that can be rented. This will impact parking in planned developments.

Parking. Most associations already have parking problems. ADUs will exacerbate the problem. Associations that require cars be parked in garages cannot use the requirement to stop garage conversions. The bill voids any restrictions that would prevent the construction of ADUs.

Rules Enforcement. Associations can continue to enforce garage parking requirements, but only against those who do not convert them into ADUs. This will create rules enforcement problems for associations. Owners will not take kindly that some must follow parking rules while others are exempt.

Two Per Lot. The bill allows one accessory dwelling unit and one junior accessory dwelling unit per lot. That means owners can convert their garage into a JADU and build an ADU in their backyard.

Expedited Approvals. The bill expedites the approval process. Local agencies will be required to process applications within 60 days of their submission. Some applications can receive ministerial approval. That means they can be approved without a hearing notwithstanding any local ordinance regulating the issuance of variances or special use permits.

Fees Limited. In addition to streamlining applications, permit fees will be limited. Agencies cannot treat ADUs as a new residential use for purposes of calculating connection fees or capacity charges for utilities, including water and sewer service, nor can they require the applicant to install a new or separate utility connection directly between the accessory dwelling unit and the utility or impose a related connection fee or capacity charge.

Increased Parking. When a garage, carport, or covered parking structure is demolished in conjunction with the construction of an accessory dwelling unit or converted to an accessory dwelling unit, local agencies cannot require that those off-street parking spaces be replaced. In other words, parking is pushed to the streets. In addition, if owners want to create parking additional on their lots, the bill allows for parking in setback areas. That means more vehicles can be parked on a lot and parked closer to neighboring houses.
Setback Requirements. Association setback requirements that would prevent the construction of backyard ADUs will be voided. Setbacks will be reduced to "no more than four feet from the side and rear lot lines."
View Restrictions. The bill does not address view restrictions. Can an association block the construction of ADUs that violate view restrictions? The bill's broad language striking down any restrictions that prevent the construction of ADUs arguably includes view restrictions. Litigation will likely erupt over this issue.
Owner Occupancy. The bill allows local agencies to impose a requirement that an owner occupy either the primary dwelling or the ADU. Accordingly, associations should be able to adopt the restriction as well.
Rental Period. The bill allows local agencies to impose a restriction that ADUs be rented for terms longer than 30 days. That means associations should include ADU rental restrictions in their rules even if no such restriction is found in their CC&Rs.
Property Values. Higher density created by ADUs means additional vehicles on streets. In addition to parking problems and rules enforcement issues, the influx of ADU renters will burden amenities such as pools, clubhouses, tennis courts, etc. This could change neighborhood aesthetics and could drive down property values.
RECOMMENDATION: Association boards should talk to legal counsel about adopting policies and procedures for ADUs and JADUs. Contact us for assistance.
Following are questions we started receiving about ADUs:

ADU #1. Does the ADU bill apply to Indian owned land? -Al H.

RESPONSE: It depends on where it's located. As U.S. citizens, American Indians are generally subject to federal, state, and local laws. On federal Indian reservations, however, only federal and tribal laws apply to members of the tribe, unless Congress provides otherwise. Accordingly, if a common interest development is built on Indian owned land outside of a reservation, the ADU bill would apply. If the development is inside the reservation, it would not apply.

ADU #2. What are the steps in preparing guidelines to revise our architectural guidelines to regulate ADUs in our HOA? -John R.

RESPONSE: The bill allows associations to adopt restrictions so long as they do not unreasonably increase the cost of ADUs. Your board will need to work with legal counsel to prepare ADU rules and then go through the normal procedure for adopting rules.

ADU #3. I'm not clear from your last newsletter if this law (allowing ADU structures in back yards & converting garages to ADUs) applies to condominium complexes, too, or just single family homes & townhomes. -R.R.

RESPONSE: Condominiums are not affected. The statute specifically references planned developments. Townhouse construction where owners own their structure and the lot it sits on, will be affected if they have garages.

ADU #4. I’d appreciate your latest info regarding ADU guidelines as mentioned in your newsletter. We just revised our ARC documents allowing for HOA exemption from this disastrous change. Ouch!! -Arthur S.

RESPONSE: Law firms are studying the legislation so they can assist their clients in how best to implement the law. Our firm is preparing ADU guidelines. You can contact us for more information.

More Problems Identified. Further analysis of SB 323 has revealed additional problems. Hopefully, this is the last of the difficulties.
   A.  Deadline for Adoption of Election Rules. The original election law in 2005 provided time for associations to adopt election rules--it gave them until July 1 of the following year. CCHAL did not provide any such buffer.
Their law goes into effect January 1, 2020. That has law firms and boards across the state scrambling and will put many associations in violation because there is not enough time to get amendments in place for elections in January, February, March and April.
Bylaws. Associations with an election in the first quarter of 2020 cannot possibly amend their bylaws in time to incorporate the burdensome requirements imposed by CCHAL. That means associations will need to amend their election rules without any corresponding changes in their bylaws, thereby creating a conflict between their bylaws and their election rules.
Election Rules. With the 90-day restriction on election amendments, associations with elections in the first quarter of 2020 must either (i) amend their election rules in violation of the 90-day restriction or (ii) hold their elections under existing rules in violation of CCHAL's election requirements. Either approach creates the potential for legal challenge by disaffected homeowners.
Election Timeline. CCHAL's extended election timeline is difficult to parse. As a result, there are at least three different versions of the timeline being circulated. No one knows for sure which one is fully compliant with the new requirements. It would be nice if Marjorie Murray and Senator Wieckowski published a definitive timeline so associations could avoid getting sued.
    B.  90-Day Amendment Restriction. Election rules adopted cannot be amended less than 90 days prior to an election. (Civ. Code §5105(h).) Unfortunately, the bill did not define the starting point of an election. Is it the appointment of an inspector of elections, the call for nominations, the counting of ballots, or something else? It creates another opportunity for legal challenges if a disgruntled homeowner disagrees with the board's selection of a starting point for the 90-day amendment restriction.
    C.  Hierarchy of Documents. SB 323 turned the hierarchy of documents on its head. Civil Code §4205 establishes a hierarchy of authority so boards of directors and courts can determine which documents control whenever there is a conflict between them. The hierarchy is as follows:

    1. Law
    2. CC&Rs
    3. Articles of Incorporation
    4. Bylaws
    5. Rules

CCHAL's legislation creates new election requirements that must be incorporated into election rules in all of California's 55,000 residential and mixed-use associations. Those requirements prevail notwithstanding anything to the contrary in their CC&Rs or bylaws. That means election rules are now in the #2 position whenever there is a conflict between amended election rules and any other governing document.
   D.  Term Limits. CCHAL may have intentionally or unintentionally voided term limits. If associations cannot establish any nomination qualifications except those allowed by Marjorie Murray's organization, that means term limits are voided since they prevent members from being nominated.
   E.  Recall Elections. The conflict between CCHAL's extended election timeline and the Corporation's Code we identified in last week's newsletter may require changes in how recall elections are handled. Since elections will now last approximately 105 days, the 90-day timeline for recall elections required by the Corporations Code are in conflict.
This can be dealt with by holding two elections--a 90-day recall election followed by a separate 105-day election (assuming the recall is successful). That means recalled directors remain in place until the association goes through a CCHAL election. The second approach is to decide that election rules override the Corporations Code and hold the recall and director election simultaneously using the new 105-day timeline. It's one more detail for law firms to sort out when amending election rules and bylaws.
   F.  Costs Levied by a Third Party. Another example of poor drafting is a new provision by CCHAL that candidates cannot be disqualified for nonpayment of costs levied by a third party. There is a great deal of speculation as to its meaning since third parties don't levy costs via associations. They levy their costs independently. If anyone happens to attend one of Marjorie Murray's classes on how to sue associations, they can ask her what it means and then let us know.
As with our last two newsletters, there were too many emails to print. Many were edited to make them shorter. Following is a sampling:

Nightmare Bill #1. Someone should investigate why Marjorie Murray never registered as a lobbyist. You can get the Center for California Homeowner Association Law's IRS form 999 showing a "loan" to her, putting Marjorie Murray in violation of applicable lobbying laws. -Anonymous

RESPONSE: If Marjorie Murray is not registered, she must be operating under a loophole.

Nightmare Bill #2. Here is an email address I have for Marjorie Murray: [email protected]. Hope this helps! -S.S.

Nightmare Bill #3. Regarding CCHAL, how is it funded? Regarding Senator Wieckowski, where is he from and how does he benefit by creating unnecessary laws? -Jim K.

RESPONSE: I've been told that CCHAL is funded by plaintiffs' lawyers (hence the classes on how to sue associations). Unfortunately, I have not been able to verify their source of funding. As for Sen. Wieckowski, his website states he is a Democrat from Fremont representing a portion of San Francisco's East Bay. His alignment with CCHAL is a mystery. His bill harms over 9 million Californians. I don't see how that helps him politically.

Nightmare Bill #4. What about electronic voting? Is it not allowed in California? -Brad S.

RESPONSE: Corporations throughout California can use electronic voting--except if the corporation is a homeowners association. Marjorie Murray's organization helped kill legislation that would have allowed electronic voting.

Nightmare Bill #5. What is a voluntary non-CID association? -Jairo A.

RESPONSE: Before developers fully understood how to create homeowner associations, they created deed restricted developments. Typically, the restrictions protected views and the architectural integrity of the development. They didn't create an association to enforce the restrictions because they didn't know how. As a result, enforcement was left to individual owners. It had the effect of pitting one homeowner against another. As a result, homeowners would get together and form a voluntary association with voluntary dues. Because everything is voluntary, dues are quite small and voluntary associations have difficulty enforcing restrictions because legal expenses often outstrip their budgets.

Nightmare Bill #6. Do you represent homeowners against their associations? -Glori

RESPONSE: No, to avoid potential conflicts of interest, we do not represent individual board members, homeowners, management companies, or vendors. We only serve as corporate counsel to associations. There are a number of fine lawyers in practice who represent homeowners against their associations.

Nightmare Bill #7. Can SB 323 be repealed? -Susan E.

RESPONSE: That's unlikely. Homeowners throughout California fought the bill by writing letters, making phone calls, and visiting their legislators. Unfortunately, Marjorie Murray's organization and Senator Wieckowski were able to push through the legislation.

Nightmare Bill #8. We are a small HOA. Our annual meeting will be 1/15/20. Are we supposed to completely redo our process and not have our annual meeting until sometime in April (based on the new timeline?) -Myrna W.

RESPONSE: Existing election laws are valid through January 1, 2020. Currently, you can operate under them and send out notices and ballots. To be safe, you should appoint an independent election inspector to act as an inspector and hold your election January 15 (and hope no one sues over real or imagined violations under CCHAL's new timeline). Your other option is to push your election into the second quarter of next year while you amend your documents and adopt the new election timeline.

Nightmare Bill #9. We are a small (31-unit) self-managed condo association. Our total income proposed for 2020 is $66,960. Hard to imagine how the expenses required by this bill will impact our association. Am I right in assuming that this total pain bill applies to us also? -Mary C.

RESPONSE: Sadly, yes. Marjorie Murray's organization did not make any exceptions for small associations. Their burdensome requirements apply to a 5-unit association the same as a 5,000-unit association.

Nightmare Bill #10. We are an association of cabin owners formed in 1981, each with a 1/26th share of 8+ acres. We have bylaws but not CC&Rs. We have been told that we are not a CID but TIC and therefore do not need to follow Davis-Stirling or any of the rules related to such (no open meetings, annual mailings, reserves, budgets or election rules). As secretary, I am skeptical. Is this advice correct? -Lesley M.

RESPONSE: From your description, it sounds like you are a CID. Unlike stock cooperatives where a corporation owns the entire project and shareholders are given an exclusive right to lease a unit, a TIC (also known as a "community apartment project" or "own-your-owns") is a development where members own the entire project as tenants in common (TIC) and are given the exclusive right to lease a unit (in your case, a cabin). This form of legal structure is one of the four recognized under the Davis-Stirling Act as a common interest development subject to the Act. (Civ. Code §4105) You should have legal counsel review your governing documents.

Nightmare Bill #11. I see nothing in the CC&Rs that prohibits a member obtaining a new ballot and changing his vote, prior to the votes being counted for a board election. Since we can nominate someone from the floor the day of the election, or if we learn something new about a candidate, how is this possible? Our management company says it is not allowed. Could you please site any code that addresses this? -Mary B.

RESPONSE: Your management company is correct. Once a secret ballot is received by the inspector of elections, it is irrevocable per Civil Code §5120(a).

Nightmare Bill #12. I no longer live in California having had the good sense to move four years ago. I sincerely pray Idaho will be a place where there is more common sense in government. -Sandy B.

RESPONSE: At the moment, common sense is in short supply in California. Let's hope the malady does not spread to surrounding states.

Nightmare Bill #13. This new law (SB 323) is insane. I’ve just been made aware that it is in direct conflict with the California Data Protection Act, which goes into effect on January 1. From what I’m being told, one act says you have to protect the integrity of information under your control, and the other says you have to give it to any member who requests it. Any idea how to comply with both laws? -Shannon M.

RESPONSE: SB 323 is one of the worst bills in memory. It's excessive in its reach and poorly drafted. I will have to look into the Data Protection Act to see how the two interact.

Nightmare Bill #14. If Governor Brown vetoed this awful legislation last year, why did Newsom sign it this year? What’s his beef (or ineptitude) with HOAs? -Ken M.

RESPONSE: Good question.

Nightmare Bill #15. My board of directors is confused as to all the ramifications of this legislation and would like to get a general understanding of what they are facing prior to paying for legal advice.  -Mike S.

RESPONSE: Right now, lawyers are working overtime trying to untangle the bill and draft new election rules. Your board shouldn't try to understand what you're facing--it would make your head hurt. Instead, authorize legal counsel to prepare new election rules and increase your annual budget for legal fees.

Nightmare Bill #16. Can small associations still conduct verbal elections during our annual meetings? We consist of only 8 units. -Patrice L.

RESPONSE: No, they can't. However, I suspect many small associations will ignore SB 323 and operate informally as your association does.

Nightmare Bill #17. What exactly can management companies legally do to facilitate an election? -Debra D.

RESPONSE: Under the direction of an independent election inspector, management can send ballots, collect ballots, count ballots, open ballots, and tally votes.

Nightmare Bill #18. Can a member of our management company, who serves a different association, miles away, and has NOTHING to do with our association be an inspector for our election? -Frank M.

RESPONSE: No, that won't work. The person is an employee of the management company under contract to your association. You will need to appoint a homeowner to act as your inspector or hire someone to handle the election. That person can then use your management company to assist with the election.


Election Rules. All associations must adopt new election rules. Any election conducted without new rules will be subject to legal challenge and may result in monetary penalties and an award of attorney fees.

CONTACT US if you would like us to prepare new election rules for your association.


We are looking for experienced attorneys to join our firm.

Candidates should have at least five years' experience as an attorney.

We offer growth opportunities and excellent benefits. Contact me at 800-464-2817 or by email.

Adrian J. Adams, Esq.

Boards can contact us for friendly, professional advice.

Adrian J. Adams, Esq.
Founder & Managing Partner

New Election Rules Required

Oct 27, 2019 0 Views 0 Comments

This week's newsletter will continue to focus on the problems created by SB 323 and the need to adopt new election rules to satisfy the burdensome requirements of the bill.

Next week, we hope to address Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs). ADUs will have a significant impact on homeowner associations when it comes to short-term rentals, rules enforcement, parking, and increased burdens on common area amenities. HOAs will need to adopt policies to address these issues. -Adrian

Kudos #1. Thank you so much for your wonderful newsletter. You have provided so much valuable information. Thank you! -Sue Q.

Kudos #2. Thank you! Love your emails. So informative. -Susan S.
Kudos #3. Every reader of your excellent newsletter must salute the enormous time commitment you made to produce this newsletter today! Your personal time is valued and appreciated by all readers, I am sure. -Marilyn B.
RESPONSE: Not everyone appreciated my criticism of the bill. The folks who wrote this convoluted piece of legislation are fuming. I received hate mail for pointing out the flaws. One reader believes any criticism of Gov. Newsom for signing the bill is a right-wing plot. It's not--it's the Russians. They are behind the bill.
Kudos #4. Adrian, I love your humor. -Mary M.
RESPONSE: I have to credit my mother for that. She has a way of putting a smile on everyone she meets. All I am, I owe to her.
Kudos #5. Your group does a phenomenal job of keeping us apprised of laws regarding HOAs and POAs. Thank you again! -Maggie L.
Kudos #6. I am so sorry this passed. Thank you for all you do! -Christine R.
ELECTION TIMELINE: In addition to all the other problems created by SB 323 (described in last week's newsletter), the election timeline is much more complex than I originally projected.
Fortunately, one of our senior attorneys, Wayne Louvier, updated the timeline posted on our website. You can find it here: 2020 Election Timeline. We will continue to tweak it as we parse out SB 323.
The complexity of the requirements imposed by the Center for California Homeowner Association Law (CCHAL) means most associations will be in technical violation of the law for most elections.
Boards should expect elections to now take 105 days instead of the 50 to 70 days under existing laws.
One more problem--the extended election cycle means recall elections cannot be completed in the 90-day window required by the Corporations Code. That will create its own set of problems. -Adrian
As with last week's newsletter, there were more responses than we could print. Some had to be edited to make room for others.
Nightmare Bill #1. I think there is a typo in the first line of your timeline: "At Least 90 Days Prior to the Annual Meeting: Select 2 or 3 inspector(s) of elections." Shouldn't it be "1 or 3"? -James P.
RESPONSE: It’s those gremlins again. It should have said "1 or 3" inspectors.
Nightmare Bill #2. Can you please clarify whether or not SB 323 applies to those commercial associations that were organized under Davis-Stirling, rather than the CICID?
RESPONSE: SB 323 applies to residential and mixed-use (both residential and commercial) associations. Commercial CIDs originally organized under the Davis-Stirling Act are no longer under the Act. They are now exclusively under the Commercial and Industrial Common Interest Development Act (CICID Act).

Nightmare Bill #3. Does SB 323 allow nominations for vacant board positions from the floor at annual HOA meetings? Are we limited to the list of candidates circulated in advance of the meeting? -Steve W.

RESPONSE: You can still nominate candidates at the annual meeting if your election rules provide for it.

Nightmare Bill #4. So happy to have been smart enough to move out of California two years ago and be done with the SOCIALIST view of life! So, so, so HAPPY!!! -Francyne W.

RESPONSE: Uh-oh. Now I'm going to get hate mail from socialists.

Nightmare Bill #5. Does this mean management companies can no longer facilitate annual elections starting January 1, 2020? Does it have to state in the association's bylaws that only title holders can run for office? Or can anyone run for office? -Rosaline C.

RESPONSE: Management companies can help facilitate elections, they just can't serve as inspectors for associations they manage.

Prior to meddling by CCHAL, homeowners could decide for themselves the qualifications of directors. CCHAL's legislation overrides all HOA bylaw provisions in California so that only owners are qualified to serve on boards of directors. This harms small associations that need the flexibility to elect someone who is not on title, such as the spouse of an owner.

Nightmare Bill #6. Most of this baffles me. Wait a minute—all of it baffles me. -Dolores

RESPONSE: Don't feel bad. Law firms all over California are trying to unravel the maze of inconsistencies and problems created by SB 323. Many were identified in last week's newsletter. No doubt more will emerge starting January 1, 2020. The bill creates full employment for lawyers (both those who want to sue associations and those trying to protect them from litigation).

Nightmare Bill #7. It seems the least the legislature and governor could have done would have been to allow electronic voting. That would really make voting so much easier for both large and small HOAs. -Vanda H.

RESPONSE: In 2013, the Community Association Institute's California Legislative Action Committee (CAI-CLAC) sought to lower the cost of elections and increase voter participation by introducing a bill for electronic balloting. It received stiff opposition from you-know-who (CCHAL) and the bill died in the legislature. At some point, it may be submitted again and, hopefully, common sense will prevail.

Nightmare Bill #8. Please publish information on who is CCHAL and by that I mean who its members are if such is available. -Paul F.

RESPONSE: CCHAL stands for "Center for California Homeowner Association Law." According to "GuideStar," their office is located at 3758 Grand Avenue, Suite 56, Oakland, CA 94610 and their principal officer is Marjorie Murray.

CCHAL claims their primary purpose is to inform, educate and train the public about homeowner association issues, rights, and laws. Several years ago, I attended one of their training sessions to see what they were teaching. It was a course on how to sue homeowner associations, complete with forms to file with the court. Just what we need--more litigation.

There is no public membership list for CCHAL that I could find. It's a little ironic since CCHAL is passing legislation requiring HOAs to publish their members' email addresses. Maybe someone at CCHAL will publish their membership list and bring some sunshine to the organization.

I looked for a website for CCHAL but could not find that either. They seem a bit secretive. I'm sure some of CCHAL's members are well-meaning. However, judging from the legislation CCHAL pushes each year, it appears their leadership is hostile toward associations.

Nightmare Bill #9. Can HOAs vote to remove themselves from the Davis-Stirling Act? -Ron R.

RESPONSE: This is not an instance where you can vote with your feet. If you're a common interest development, you're under the Davis-Stirling Act and SB 323 applies.

Nightmare Bill #10. In federal/state/county/municipal elections there are entire manuals written on the subject of the handling of "provisional" ballots, yet nothing appears to be incorporated into SB 323??? -Hank J.

RESPONSE: No, nothing. I would keep that on the down low. Otherwise, CCHAL will float another bill. The result would be more convoluted legislation and entire manuals written on the subject. (On second thought, it would mean more employment for lawyers. I could hire another one just to write manuals.)

Nightmare Bill #11. While SB 323 may not be perfect, there are important issues it addresses. -Greg P.

RESPONSE: There is not a single important issue addressed by SB 323. If CCHAL had proposed something sensible like elections by acclamation (which would have reduced election costs), SB 323 could have been a useful bill.

Nightmare Bill #12. As president of an association, I send out informational posts to Nextdoor, regarding things like gate repairs, safety alerts and street and landscape maintenance. We are considering use of an internet group (groups.io) as an opt-in service. Since internet groups are email based, do we have to share our group membership list beyond the opt-in membership? -Jim L.

RESPONSE: If the email addresses are maintained by the association, yes, you will be required to share them.

Nightmare Bill #13. Just because some scofflaw decides to run for the board doesn't mean anybody has to vote for them, so why worry? And if somehow that scofflaw put on a magnificent campaign and was elected to the board, he/she has only 1 vote among the 5 or more board members. -Hank J.

RESPONSE: Cumulative voting and voter apathy can put scofflaws and their buddies on a board before anyone knows what happened. Then, thanks to cumulative voting, it's almost impossible to get them off. Director qualifications (before SB 323) kept that from happening. That is all gone now.

Nightmare Bill #14. We are a small HOA. Our occupant information sheet allows occupants (with signature) to allow or not allow their contact information to be published. Is this sufficient? Or is another statement: “I do not want to be included in published directory” required? Is there a Bill 323 for dummies? I desperately need help! -Ingrid T.

RESPONSE: If you have something in writing from each owner that clearly states their information cannot be published, you should be safe. Even so, I would update the form so owners can specifically opt out of the membership list.

Beyond the information published by HOA law firms around the state, there is no "SB 323 For Dummies" that I'm aware of. We will be updating everything on our website to explain the maze of conflicting changes (at least the stuff that makes sense).

Nightmare Bill #15. Our ballots are out for vote and will be counted on November 5. Am I correct that this new bill will affect next year's election but not this one in process? -Bill B.

RESPONSE: Since your election will be completed this calendar year, it is still under existing election laws. You will need new election rules well before your next election.

Nightmare Bill #16. One item that may be confusing is that you mention under old law CPAs could be the inspector, but your summary lends readers into thinking this no longer can be the case. As a CPA in the industry, I perform inspector services for many associations that I do not provide any other service for. -Steven S.

RESPONSE: CPAs can be inspectors of election--just not for associations for which they perform other services. The same is true for management companies--they can serve as inspectors of election so long as it's not for associations they manage.

Nightmare Bill #17. Senator Wieckowski is the one who brought this Bill up again after Jerry Brown vetoed it. He has no business being in the Legislature... I even wonder if he has ever lived in a condominium association... so what's his real reason for initiating it yet again??????? -Angela B.

RESPONSE: Sadly, Sen. Wieckowski seems to be closely aligned with CCHAL.

Nightmare Bill #18. Does this apply to all HOAs or just those under Davis-Stirling? Some HOAs are voluntary. -Judy B.

RESPONSE: It only affects Davis-Stirling associations. Voluntary non-CID associations are not affected.

Nightmare Bill #19. Should our HOA start planning now even though our election is not until next year? -Wayne M.

RESPONSE: Yes, especially if it's in the first quarter of 2020. The complexity of the new election timeline almost guarantees problems and technical violations, thus my concern over litigation exposure CCHAL created for associations. See Election Timeline. We will continue to add notes to the timeline to help associations reduce their exposure.

Some of the changes imposed by SB 323 require action by associations. Failure to do so could result in significant legal consequences and cause the association to be out of compliance with applicable laws starting January 1, 2020.
As a result, law firms around the state are scrambling to put together packages to rewrite election rules for associations. We have done the same.
Because other legislation impacts creates the need for additional policies, we offer more than just election rules. See below and contact us for pricing.

Restated Election Rules. Required for ALL associations pursuant to SB 323. All associations must adopt or change their election rules to conform to the changed laws. Any election conducted without compliant election rules will make any election subject to legal challenge and may result in monetary penalties and an award of attorney fees.

Restated Bylaws. For all associations in order to comply with SB 323 and establish consistency with the mandatory revised election rules. Amending bylaws at the same time as the election rules will ensure consistency and avoid member confusion and mistakes.

Membership List Policy. For all associations which communicate or intend to communicate with members by email. SB 323 makes member email addresses part of the association’s membership list, which is available to all members upon request. All associations should make members aware that their email addresses are subject to disclosure on 1/1/2020.

ADU Policy. For all associations with garages or 500 square feet or more of space in which an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) or junior accessory dwelling unit (JADU) could be constructed. AB 670 voids prohibitions on ADUs and JADUs, but allows reasonable restrictions. This policy can be added to existing design guidelines or operate as a stand-alone policy.

Anti-Harassment Policy. For all associations as a result of the adoption of new DFEH Regulations. The changes add new requirements for associations to investigate and take action on claims made by protected classes of people.

Employee-Independent Contractor Analysis. For all associations utilizing independent contractors in order to determine whether they may meet the new test for being classified as an employee.

Elevated Structures Inspection Policy. For all condominium projects with exterior balconies and other elevated structures.

Electric Vehicle Charging Station Policy. For associations with common area parking in which an owner might wish to install an electric vehicle charging station.

Solar Policy. Sets forth requirements for individual owners’ installation of solar energy systems. This is especially important where the association is responsible to maintain, repair and replace roofs.

Communication Policy. Includes procedures for handling member/resident communications and helps to alleviate the inefficiencies associated with handling requests from difficult members/residents who unreasonably and disproportionately utilize the association’s time and resources.

Disability Accommodation Request Policy. Includes procedures for handling disability accommodation requests.

CC&R Restatement. If an association has not updated its governing documents in the last 10 years, it is usually more cost effective and beneficial to do a full restatement to comply with new laws.

CONTACT US if you have questions about our recommendations or would like pricing from our a la carte menu of policies.

Adrian J. Adams, Esq.

Boards can contact us for friendly, professional advice.

Adrian J. Adams, Esq.
Founder & Managing Partner

Analysis of SB 323

Oct 21, 2019 0 Views 0 Comments
We were swamped with feedback on the signing of Senate Bill 323 by Governor Newsom. Readers had a lot to say about the bill pushed by the Center for California Homeowner Association Law (CCHAL).
In addition, attorneys from around the state discussed internal problems in the poorly drafted bill. Following are some of the complications already identified:
Email Privacy. Associations who currently have a list of member emails must now add those emails to the membership list and make them available to any member who asks for them. Even if members intended their email addresses for HOA communications only, CCHAL has made them public. 
Most members will not want email address made public. To avoid this, associations need to either (i) purge their existing email list or (ii) send everyone a form allowing them to opt out of the membership list. This needs to be completed before January 1, 2020.
RECOMMENDATION: Boards should alert their membership of the pending disclosure and their ability to opt out. Opting out can be done via email.
Email Opt Out Problems. Because of poor drafting, SB 323 allows members to opt out in one provision but failed to allow for it in a second provision referenced by the first. New language in Civil Code §5200 defines "Association records" to include Membership lists with email addresses. It allows members to opt out of the membership list pursuant to Civil Code §5220. Unfortunately, Section 5220 does not include email addresses.

A strict reading means members can opt out of everything except sharing their email addresses. I prefer to read 5200 as the authorizing statute so any opt out includes email addresses.Unfortunately, CCHAL opened the door to legal challenges.
RECOMMENDATION: Boards should follow the advice of their their legal counsel on how best to handle this situation.
Election Confusion. Section 5100 of the Civil Code was amended to require the inspector of elections to deliver to the membership ballots and a copy of the election rules at least 30 days before an election. Section 5115 overlaps duties by making the association responsible for giving notice of the election and for distributing ballots.
RECOMMENDATION: Duplicative mailings by the association and the inspector will be costly and confusing. To avoid this problem, one of the parties should delegate to the other the duty of mailing everything. The board should delegate the task to the election inspector or vice versa.
Who Can Be An Inspector? Under existing election laws, an association can use their management company or their CPA to handle the election. More often than not, it saved money. That is no longer allowed. Starting January 1, "An independent third party may not be a person, business entity, or subdivision of a business entity who is currently employed or under contract to the association for any compensable services other than serving as an inspector of elections."
This will likely cost more since management companies and independent inspectors will need to both be involved preparing election materials. Their will be some duplication of effort. It makes elections more expensive, not less.
Volunteer Inspectors. Boards can avoid some expenses by selecting homeowners to be inspectors of election. Unfortunately, inspector duties have increased, which means the risk of error has also increased. If lawsuits are filed, the inspector will undoubtedly be named.
If sued, will the inspector be covered by the association's D&O insurance? That may depend on the particular association's insurance policy.
RECOMMENDATION: Before appointing homeowners as inspectors of election, boards should make sure they are protected under the association's D&O insurance.
Incentives Removed. Under SB 323, no one's voting rights can ever be suspended. An owner can be six months delinquent, ignore the association's rules, have numerous unpaid fines and still vote. Suspension has been an incentive to pay assessments and comply with the association's governing documents. CCHAL took away the incentive.
Non-Owner Directors. CCHAL also took away the right of associations to decide for themselves if they want to elect non-owners to their boards. This is a blow to small associations who may want qualified non-owners on their boards. CCHAL's hostility toward tenants is inexplicable. Fortunately, the bill does not prevent boards from appointing tenants to their boards. They just can't be elected.
RECOMMENDATION: Have legal counsel review the appointment provision in an association's bylaws to make sure there are no barriers to such appointments.
Director Qualifications. Poor drafting created another anomaly. Changes to election requirements provide a handful of mandatory and permissive disqualifications but does not clearly limit associations to those disqualifications. For example, associations are required to disqualify nonmembers from nomination and are allowed by CCHAL to disqualify co-owners, those who have owned for less than a year, delinquent owners, and persons with a criminal conviction that would prevent the association from obtaining a fidelity bond. 
The bill seems to imply that no other disqualifying provisions can be used but it does not actually say it.
Some believe all existing director qualifications in an association's bylaws will continue to be valid after January 1, 2020. I don't believe that was CCHAL's intent but who knows? (It appears CCHAL's real intent was to create full employment for lawyers.)
RECOMMENDATION: Boards should consult legal counsel.
Removal of Directors? CCHAL created yet another anomaly. It did not address director removal provisions. That means a member not in good standing could be elected to the board but, once elected, could be removed from the board because the director was (i) not in good standing, (ii) suing the association, (iii) missed three consecutive meetings, (iv) is a registered sex offender, etc.
As long as the removal provisions are not worded as a qualifications, they are still valid.
RECOMMENDATION: Associations will need to talk to legal counsel about how best to handle this situation. (More employment for lawyers.)
New Timeline. The election timeline is now longer. Associations need to sequence their elections as follows (if I missed anything, please let me know):


1. At Least 90 Days Prior to the Annual Meeting: Select 1 or 3 inspector(s) of elections and set a date for the annual meeting.

2. At Least 90 Days Prior to the Annual Meeting: Give notice of the election procedure and the deadline for submitting nominations and where to submit nominations.

3. At Least 30 Days Before Ballots Are Distributed: Prepare a candidate registration list and a voter list. The voter list must include each voter's name, voting power and the physical address of the voter's separate interest, parcel number, or both. The mailing address for the ballot must be listed on the voter list if it differs from the physical address of the voter’s separate interest or if only the parcel number is used.

4. At Least 30 Days Before Ballots Are Distributed: Allow members to verify the accuracy of their individual information on the candidate registration list and voter list.

5. At Least 30 Days Before Ballots Are Distributed: Give notice of (i) the date/time/address to return ballots, (ii) the date/time/location of the meeting, and (iii) the list of candidates.

6. At Least 30 Days Prior to the Annual Meeting: The inspector must deliver, or cause to be delivered ballots and a copy of the election rules.

RECOMMENDATION: Management companies and inspectors of election should work out a timeline sequence of events necessary to comply with all the new requirements.

Higher Costs and Litigation Exposure. The legislation is a mess. Associations will incur legal fees, pay more for elections, and have greater exposure to litigation. The bill is like lipstick on a pig--it's ugly.
RECOMMENDATION: At a minimum, every association will need to work with legal counsel to amend/restate their election rules. Amending bylaws is discretionary. At some point, boards should amend their bylaws to eliminate invalid provisions. We will be sending a package to our clients with recommended changes and pricing. If you would like a proposal, contact us.

The legislation sponsored by CCHAL generated more emails than I can print. Following is a sampling:

Nightmare Bill #1. NOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!! -Jamie H.

Nightmare Bill #2. Wow what a nightmare! Is there an appeal option to this disaster? -Dino D.

RESPONSE: No, there is no appeal. Someone would have to float a new bill next year to undo the mess created by SB 323. Having just voted it through, it's unlikely the legislature or the governor would reverse direction.

Nightmare Bill #3. Is there a way associations can fight this? -Laurel S.

RESPONSE: See below.

Nightmare Bill #4. If there are 55,000 HOAs in the state, we should be able to get at least 50,000 signatures on a Newsom recall petition. Lets get this rolling! -Robert M.

RESPONSE: I was surprised to discover there are already two petitions to recall the Governor for his mismanagement of the state. See Petition #1 and Petition #2.

Nightmare Bill #5. I have not only signed the recall Newsom petition, I signed up to donate a hundred a month to the campaign. -Anonymous

RESPONSE: I'm not advocating a recall but it would interesting if it actually happened. Legislators and governors might leave associations alone for an election cycle or two.

Nightmare Bill #6. I am all for SB 323! It benefits members! -Kathy M.

RESPONSE: I suspect you have not read the bill. It takes away homeowner rights and takes money out of their pockets. Every association in California will have to rewrite their documents. It will be costly for HOAs, lengthen elections, and create more exposure to litigation.
None of this benefits members.

Nightmare Bill #7. Gov. Newsom should leave us alone and work on the homeless problems. He is trying to solve a non-problem instead of looking at real problems. -Finn M.

Nightmare Bill #8. What happens if an association does not comply and make these updates immediately? This will hurt very small and poor associations such as ours. -Christine K.

RESPONSE: If an association conducts elections without election rules or does so with nonconforming rules, members can challenge and possibly void the election and be awarded a fine of $500 plus attorneys fees. (Civ. Code §5145.)

Nightmare Bill #9. Our association was in the process of amending our bylaws. Now that SB 323 has passed are we required to include it? -Jim M.

RESPONSE: If you are in the drafting phase, you should include SB 323. If your bylaws are currently out for a vote, you can either pull them back and revise them or let the voting continue. It's a business decision for the board to make. Talk to your legal counsel and see if he/she thinks revisions can be made without taking the document back out for a vote.

Nightmare Bill #10. Does that mean an owner can violate all our rules, refuse to comply, refuse to pay fines, and still run for the board? We can't disqualify them? -Don R.

RESPONSE: That is exactly what it means. You can no longer disqualify scofflaws. They can occupy a seat on the board.

Nightmare Bill #11. I am the president of 496 condos. I have a personal list of email addresses about 240 owners and tenants, people who I send an advance copy of the newsletter, alerts for coyotes, community events and warnings. I blind copy all emails for privacy. Would those have to be shared? When they gave them to me, it was with the understanding of anonymity. -Sharlene D.

RESPONSE: If the email list is your personal list, it does not have to be shared. If the list is used by the board to transmit official communications from the board to the membership, it would be deemed a record of the association and would have to be shared with any member who requested it.

Nightmare Bill #12. Does SB 323 allow our signatures to be copied? -Susan R.

RESPONSE: At one point it did. SB 323 was subsequently amended so "Signed voter envelopes may be inspected but may not be copied."

Nightmare Bill #13. Does this apply to commercial associations or just residential? -Jeff L.

RESPONSE: Only residential associations have to suffer under this legislation.

Nightmare Bill #14. My board is asking if this new law is going to affect their upcoming annual election scheduled in January 2020. -Marti M.

RESPONSE: Not every agrees on this issue. Until January 1, 2020, your association's existing bylaws and election rules are still valid and applicable. That means the appointment of a manager as your inspector for the January election is currently valid. Starting January 1, you cannot appoint your manager to be an inspector. However, if he/she was validly appointed in October/November, the appointment may be valid for your January election. The more conservative approach is to hire an independent inspector.

Nightmare Bill #15. I see SB 323 as a good thing. Many people in my association believe the management company is corrupt and this is a good way of showing the truth. -Ted S.

RESPONSE: I don't see how taking away homeowner rights and increasing the cost of elections exposes corruption in a management company.

Nightmare Bill #16. It’s so depressing what is happening to California. -Marilyn B.

Nightmare Bill #17. Thank you for the update on SB 323. Could you clarify the restriction to being on a board with joint owners. Does this imply that an owner who is one of three persons on title is not eligible as a board member? -Frank G.

RESPONSE: If there are three of you on title, only one can be elected to the board. This is often practiced by larger associations but not small ones. Large associations have a large pool of volunteers to draw from. Small associations don't have that luxury and need the flexibility to elect co-owners to the board. You are not required to including this in your election rules--it's discretionary.


Still Ringing. How is it that I only just now notice that your mail comes from ADAMS | STILRING after enjoying your emails for several years? Has your great humor infiltrated the From line or is it an error on my part. Faithful reader. -Helga L.

RESPONSE: It's so close to Halloween that Gremlins are on the loose. I found one changing names and dates in my newsletter. Fortunately, I caught him before he could do any real damage. I put him in a box and shipped him to the legislature where he could be more productive.

Adrian J. Adams, Esq.

Boards can contact us for friendly, professional advice.

Adrian J. Adams, Esq.
Founder & Managing Partner

Nightmare Bill Signed

Oct 14, 2019 0 Views 0 Comments

This morning you received our latest newsletter summarizing legislation. Our top story was Senate Bill 323, a scary bill sitting on the Governor’s desk, awaiting his signature or veto.

We received word this morning that Governor Newsom signed SB 323, which becomes law on January 1, 2020.
This is really unfortunate.

As Halloween approaches, it is a fitting backdrop for this nightmare legislation pushed by the Center for California Homeowner Association Law (CCHAL).

Increased Election Burdens. Starting January 1, SB 323:

• Limits the right of an association’s membership to set qualifications for board candidates.

• Prevents non-owners from running for the board (a blow to small associations who may want a tenant, such as a CPA, to serve on the board).

Allows associations to only disqualify candidates who (i) have been owners for less than a year, (ii) would be on the board with a joint owner, (iii) has been convicted of a felony that jeopardizes the association’s fidelity bond insurance, or (iv) is delinquent in the payment of their assessments.

• Prohibits associations from ever suspending an owner’s right to vote.

• Requires the inspector of elections to be an entity or individual with no previous contractual relationship with the association, which disqualifies an association’s existing managers, attorneys and accountants, among others. This will increase the cost of elections for many associations.

• Requires associations to post the requirements for running for the board at least 30 days before the nomination deadline.

• Requires associations to post the list of candidates, deadline for returning ballots, time and place of the annual meeting 30 days before ballots are mailed.

• Allows owners to review the signatures of all other owners on the outside mailing envelopes, and to copy voter lists, including parcel numbers. As a condition of casting a ballot, homeowners must give up their right to keep their signatures private.

Email Addresses Made Public. SB 323 also makes your email addresses available to all members by making them part of the membership list available upon request. Members can opt out of having their email addresses included with the membership list, but the bill makes NO allowance for email addresses already provided to associations.

Costly Changes. In addition to loss of privacy, loss of control over email addresses, and loss of rights to set reasonable standards for directors, associations will need to go through costly bylaw amendments and election rule revisions to comply with SB 323.

RECOMMENDATIONS: Associations throughout the state will need to amend their election rules in order to comply with the onerous requirements of SB 323. Many associations will need to amend their bylaws. Associations utilizing member email addresses will need to develop a strategy for handling existing emails as well as for collecting new email addresses. We are developing policies and procedures to comply with SB 323. Contact us for assistance.

Adrian J. Adams, Esq.

Boards can contact us for friendly, professional advice.

Adrian J. Adams, Esq.
Founder & Managing Partner

New Laws Affecting Associations

Oct 13, 2019 0 Views 0 Comments

This week's newsletter will summarize significant pieces of legislation signed into law. One is awaiting signature and needs your action.

The new laws affect associations and most will require action by boards to minimize problems created by our legislature.

The first is the very scary SB 323 passed by the Assembly and Senate. It was vetoed last year and needs to be vetoed again this year. My partner, Nathan McGuire, provides a summary. -Adrian

SB 323

Senate Bill 323 is on the Governor’s desk awaiting action. If he doesn’t veto the bill, it will become law on January 1, 2020.

Emails Made Public. In addition to costly and unnecessary election changes, SB 323 will make your email addresses available to all members. With the rising tide of email spam, this bill is a step in the WRONG direction.

Election Problems. In addition to exposing owners' email addresses, SB 323 will:

• Limit the right to establish reasonable qualifications for candidates.

• Prohibit associations from ever suspending an owner’s right to vote.

• Require the posting of names and assessor’s parcel numbers of all members eligible to vote.

• Allow owners to review and copy other owner's signatures from ballot envelopes.

Costly Changes. In addition to loss of privacy, loss of control over email addresses, and loss of rights to set reasonable standards for directors, associations will need to go through costly bylaw amendments and election rule revisions to comply with SB 323.


1. Call the Governor at (916) 445-2841 and ask him to VETO SB 323.

2. Share CAI-CLAC’s social media posts and TAG the Governor on Facebook and Twitter at @GavinNewsom and @CAgovernor. This will ensure he sees our message.

3. Send a letter asking the Governor to VETO SB 323 here.

4. Forward this to everyone you know in the industry and ask them to get involved.

5. Share information about the dangerous impacts of SB 323 on your own blogs and newsletters to help us get the word out.

You can also stay informed with real-time updates and resources on CAI-CLAC's Facebook Page, Twitter Page and NEW LinkedIn Page.

Nathan McGuire, Esq. is a partner with ADAMS|STIRLING in charge of our Northern California offices and currently serves as Chair of CAI-CLAC.

To increase affordable housing in California, Governor Newsom signed Assembly Bill 670 into law. The legislation encourages owners to convert their garages into living spaces and build small accessory dwelling units (ADUs) in their back yards as low-income rentals.
Gov. Newsom also signed a number of companion bills to facilitate the construction of ADUs:

AB 68 reduces barriers to ADU approval and construction.

AB 587 provides an exemption for affordable housing organizations to sell deed-restricted land to eligible low-income homeowners.

AB 671 requires local governments to encourage and expedite ADU rentals and requires the state to develop a list of state grants and financial incentives for affordable ADUs.

AB 881 restricts local jurisdiction permitting criteria so ADUs will receive streamlined approval if constructed in existing garages.

SB 13 lowers application approval times and provides a mechanism to get unpermitted ADUs up to code.

Affect on Associations. The legislation voids any restrictions in governing documents that prohibits the construction of ADUs. Townhomes with garages and single-family planned developments will face significant challenges complying with the new laws. Garage conversions and backyard ADUs will exacerbate parking problems, increase the burden on existing amenities, impact rules enforcement, and complicate security.

RECOMMENDATION: Contractors are already advertising their services to convert garages and build backyard ADUs. Our firm is developing guidelines for associations we represent so they can cope with the impact this legislation will have on communities. The laws take effect January 1, 2020. We recommend all associations start revising their architectural guidelines and rules & regs in anticipation of the new requirements. Boards can contact us for assistance preparing guidelines.


Assembly Bill 5 codifies the strict test for employee versus independent contractor classification adopted by the California Supreme Court in Dynamex v. Sup. Ct.

All workers are considered employees and can only be classified as independent contractors if an association demonstrates the worker (i) is free from the control and direction of the association in the performance of work, (ii) performs work that is outside the usual course of the association, and (iii) is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business.

RECOMMENDATION: When it comes to handymen and bookkeepers working exclusively for an association, they will need to be reclassified and added to the payroll, either directly by the association or through a management company. If associations already have employees, they may need to update their employee handbooks. Contact us if you need assistance with either of these issues.


Starting in 2025, Senate Bill 326 requires condominium associations to conduct visual inspections of load-bearing components six feet above ground, supported substantially by wood (balconies). All structures must then be reinspected every nine years.

The inspector must submit a report to the board providing the physical condition and remaining useful life of the load-bearing components and associated waterproofing systems.

RECOMMENDATION: Once inspections commence, older associations will likely discover deterioration in structural components that require unexpected repairs and replacements. To avoid special assessments, boards should start setting aside monies in their reserves. They don't need money to replace every balcony. Instead, they should plan on enough to repair a likely percentage of balconies. Boards should talk to their reserve study specialists now to determine an appropriate amount to set aside.


Senate Bill 652 prohibits restrictions on the display of religious items on entry doors and door frames of dwellings. The item displayed can have dimensions up to 3 feet by 1 foot in size.

The most likely symbols will be mezuzahs displayed by Jews on door frames and crosses displayed by Christians on doors.

RECOMMENDATION: Associations should adopt rules regulating such displays, i.e., nothing obscene, only items displayed because of sincerely held religious beliefs, nothing dangerous or would create a fire hazard, displays must be removed when the association conducts maintenance or repairs, etc.


Assembly Bill 446 requires the inclusion of “victim of abuse” disclosure/stamp on the first/cover page of CC&Rs:

If this document contains any restriction based on race, color, religion, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, familial status, marital status, victim of abuse status, disability, genetic information, national origin, source of income as defined in subdivision (p) of Section 12955, or ancestry, that restriction violates state and federal fair housing laws and is void, and may be removed pursuant to Section 12956.2 of the Government Code. Lawful restrictions under state and federal law on the age of occupants in senior housing or housing for older persons shall not be construed as restrictions based on familial status.

RECOMMENDATION: Everyone will need to add this to the cover page of their CC&Rs starting January 1.

Amending CC&Rs. Our CC&Rs are badly out of date and include a number of provisions that have been superseded by law and by governmental regulations. And, they are ambiguous. We are an over-55 homeowners’ association; average age  is at least 72. We are dealing with attitudes that have become unchangeable because of problems associated with aging. Our members believe that spending money to revise our CC&Rs is “wasting money” while, at the same time, they don’t object to the tens of thousands of dollars spent annually on attorneys trying to defend our outdated and ambiguous documents. Go figure! -Elaine J.

RESPONSE: It's unfortunate you aren't able to rally enough owners to clean-up your documents. At some point, there could be a costly legal issue that will garner enough support to get new documents in place. Or, you might have a large number of young people (55-year olds) move into your community. Young folks are more willing to fix things.


Fines Without Hearings #1. Your article refers to a tenant urinating by the dumpster. I don’t believe you can fine a tenant and the owner/member must be called to the Hearing. A better question is: at the Hearing can an ongoing fine be levied each time the tenant does his thing? -Don S.

RESPONSE: I should have been clearer in my response. Sometimes readers refer to owners as tenants. Members of stock cooperatives are frequently referred to as tenants. If the person violating rules is a renter rather than an owner, the association should call the owner to the hearing and fine the owner for the actions of his/her tenant. Sometimes CC&Rs provide that fines can also be levied against a renter as well as the owner. Getting scofflaws to pay fines can be difficult. Most associations find that small claims court and suspending privileges are best for collecting fines.

Fines Without Hearings #2. What, if anything, requires the board to deal directly with a tenant? I find nothing in our CC&Rs or CA law imposing such duty. The board of our 240 unit complex deals only with members in disciplinary matters, taking the position that the owner-landlord member is responsible for the actions of the tenant and that "due process" is owed only to a member and not directly to a tenant. Is our board wrong? -Bob A.

RESPONSE: Your board is correct, the primary contact is the owner.
Some boards improperly exclude renters from disciplinary hearings. Owners can bring their misbehaving renters to hearings so they can offer a defense to their actions (or make them see the error of their ways). The construction of ADUs described above will increase owner/renter issues.

Fines Without Hearings #3. If there is only one hearing but five violations, can they be fined five times for each violation or just the once? We've been told by our management company that we have to send a written notice of violation and wait for 10 working days before we can write another violation because we must allow the homeowner time to receive the written violation notice. In the meantime although we have placed a notice on the car or under the gate of the responsible unit, the person continues to abuse the rules. -Kim S.

RESPONSE: A fine can be levied for each of the five violations. If peeing in the garage warrants a fine of $100 and the perp did it five times, he can be fined $500. One hearing, five violations, five fines totaling $500. Any violations that occur after a hearing notice is mailed will require a separate notice and hearing.

Fines Without Hearings #4. The garage peeing man--forget using board members or an attorney. File indecent exposure with the police if he is being witnessed by another tenant. Simple solution and possibly no legal retaliation from that person to the HOA as the police contain the situation. -Steven C.

Adrian J. Adams, Esq.

Boards can contact us for friendly, professional advice.

Adrian J. Adams, Esq.
Founder & Managing Partner

Repeated Failures to Pass CC&Rs

Sep 29, 2019 0 Views 0 Comments

QUESTION: There are several CC&R changes our board has wanted to make for years. However, each time they're put to a vote, they fail. I believe the reason they fail is that they haven't been adequately explained to the members. The proposed amendments are simply listed in the vaguest possible terms, such as,"Article IV, Section 24 (g) and (h) regarding maintenance responsibility (drainage and seal and re-stripe)." Is there a way our board can inform members of the rationale of these amendments?

Members should know what they are voting for (or against). That means boards should fully explain amendments with detailed explanations or meaningful summaries. Doing so is not advocacy. In addition, town hall meetings can be held to answer questions. It is common to have the association's attorney attend meetings to explain the amendments.

Advocacy. If they do so at their own expense, board members can also engage in advocacy, i.e., urging members to vote FOR the amendments. They can distribute flyers, go door to door, send emails, and mail letters, if done at their own expense. Moreover, board members can use the association's media (newsletter, website, etc.) to urge members for to vote for CC&R amendments provided they give equal access to any member advocating a differing point of view. (Civ. Code §5105.)

Voter Guides. Boards can also create voter guides modeled on the ones the state uses for ballot measures. A mailing can go to the membership with an explanation of the amendment plus arguments for and against written by advocates for each side. If you hold town hall meetings, you should easily find someone opposed to your amendments. Ask the person to draft something for the voter guide. If there are several opponents, ask them to work together to draft their arguments. Make sure you establish reasonable guidelines for such as number of words, no foul language, no personal attacks, etc. Don't forget to create incentives to vote.


QUESTION: We have a tenant who urinates in the garage near the trash cans. This is unhealthy and disgusting as well as presents a health problem. Our management company says we have to call the tenant to a hearing before we can fine him, and then the same thing EVERY time this tenant does it. I think that since it's a Health Code violation we can fine him every time he does it without additional hearings. Who's right?

ANSWER: Your manager is right. Anyone accused of violating your rules must be given written notice of each violation and an opportunity to appear at a hearing to defend himself from the charge. Penalties cannot be imposed without a hearing. (Civ. Code §5855.) If there are five violations over the course of two weeks, you don't need five hearings. You can have one hearing for the five violations.

RECOMMENDATION: It sounds like the person has mental issues. If so, fines may not deter him. A letter from association's attorney threatening to sue him might curb his unhealthy activities. If there is a landlord involved, a lawyer letter to him/her is warranted.


I am pleased to announce that partner Jasmine Hale relocated to Sacramento and is opening our Sacramento office.

Jasmine’s instrumental role in the growth of our firm in the Los Angeles region makes her the ideal person to step into this leadership position. Jasmine will assist partner Nathan McGuire, managing partner of Northern California, as we expand into the Sacramento-Lake Tahoe regions.

Jasmine is a fellow of the College of Community Association Lawyers (CCAL) and brings to Sacramento over a decade of expertise in CID law practice. Jasmine speaks and teaches widely on industry standards of care for boards of directors and managers through the Community Associations Institute (CAI) and the California Association of Community Managers (CACM). In addition, Jasmine is a liaison to the California Legislative Action Committee.

Jasmine graduated from Baylor University in Texas with a double major in Political Science and Communications and went on to earn her Juris Doctor from the Pepperdine School of Law in Malibu, California.

We are delighted to expand into the Sacramento-Tahoe regions. If your association needs legal services, contact us for a proposal.


To keep pace with cutting edge technology, last month we migrated our Firm's computer network to a "Cloud Desktop" environment. Instead of operating from a local server in our corporate office, we placed our document management system, accounting programs, office productivity suite, time tracking software, internal communications (and everything else) into the cloud.

Security Enhancements. The move offers significant security enhancements for our clients and the Firm. We are using the secure and ultra-stable Citrix platform, which means there is virtually no chance of viruses or malware compromising client data by hackers. Moreover, software security patches are always current and we receive year-round, 24/7 monitoring and support.

Disaster Recovery. Because our servers are housed in hardened Department of Defense-compliant facilities with multiple redundancies for power, cooling, and server hardware in areas of the U.S. with little or no vulnerability to natural disasters, our Firm's network is never down. It allows us to serve our clients regardless of natural disasters that might affect our state, such as fires, floods and earthquakes.

Serving Client Needs. Our investment in our Firm's infrastructure allows our attorneys to operate in a safe, full office environment anywhere in the world. It means we can meet client needs from any device, from any location, day or night. When your association needs assistance, contact us.

Security Camera. I received your latest newsletter--great information on a common sense approach for board members and owners to read about. I have a concern about your article that a director was removed from the security committee by the president. Does the president have the authority to remove or install a committee chair without a vote of the other directors? -Jim W.

RESPONSE: The person who sent in the question did not state he was a director. I got the impression he may have been a homeowner who chaired the committee. Either way, you are correct. If the board put the person on the security committee and made him chair, the president would not have the authority to remove him from the committee unless fellow directors consented to the action.

Paid Director. In regards to "paid directors" in the September newsletter, I don't think most HOAs could afford enough pay to get anyone on the board unless they volunteered. -Bryn S.

RESPONSE: Very true.

What's Our Name? We are an eight-unit condo association which was built in 1971. The name of our HOA is not listed in the CC&Rs. Is there a law that says we have to update our CC&Rs? Most of our members cannot interpret what’s in the CC&Rs. -Yvonne A.

RESPONSE: If you don't have a name, you can adopt any name your members agree to. If you wish to incorporate, check with the Secretary of State for a name not already in use. There is no law requiring you to update your CC&Rs. Common sense dictates you update your governing documents if you can't understand them. We update hundreds each year throughout the state making them current with new laws and easy to understand. Where appropriate, we combine associations into a single entity or convert non-CIDS into common interest developments.

Guest Parking. Is visitor parking covered anywhere in the Davis-Stirling Act? I cannot find anything that the HOA has to provide visitor parking. -Windson W.

RESPONSE: Parking requirements are not found in the Davis-Stirling Act. Such requirements are controlled by local building/planning departments and municipal codes based on density and type of use. Developers sometimes cut corners when it comes to parking and can be held accountable if your association is within applicable statutes of limitations.

Resigning as Treasurer. I am the treasurer of our association. The rest of the board does not t seem to understand there is an urgency that dues be increased and a special assessment levied to keep up with our bills. I want to resign as treasurer but was told by the president, that if I resign from this position, I would need to resign from the board, as no one on the board will take this position. Are there any rules that state you have to resign from the board if you step down from the treasurer position? -Anonymous

RESPONSE: No, there is no such requirement. Any officer can resign at any time upon written notice to the board. (Corp. Code §7213(b).) The resigning officer continues to be a director on the board unless he/she also resigns from the board. However, someone will need to step up and become treasurer, it's one of the offices required by Corporations Code §7213(a).

Renewing Contracts. Are there any statutory requirements that contracts be reviewed or put out to bid every x-number of years? Specially, the management contract for the HOA? -Richard M.

RESPONSE: No, there is no statutory requirement. Some associations solicit proposals from other vendors every few years to make sure their current vendors are at proper market rates.

Email to the Board. If a board has an email address where members can send general suggestions, comments, etc., does this arrangement violate any provision of the Davis-Stirling Act? Would it be considered unethical in any way? -K.B.

RESPONSE: No, the arrangement does not violate the Davis-Stirling Act nor is it unethical. I suspect the practice is limited to smaller associations. It would overwhelm the boards of large associations.

Adrian J. Adams, Esq.

Boards can contact us for friendly, professional advice.

Adrian J. Adams, Esq.
Founder & Managing Partner

Security Camera Access

Sep 1, 2019 0 Views 0 Comments

QUESTION: I was chairman of our security committee. Only myself and my backup had access to the security camera system. This was to ensure the privacy of our tenants. The president demanded that I give access to board members stating that they have a right to see all HOA records. I refused stating privacy issues. The president removed me from the security committee. Are security camera recordings considered "records"? Does the board have the right to view them?

ANSWER: Yes, security camera recordings qualify as "records" and board members have a right to review them. (Corp. Code §8334.) Their status as records makes them discoverable in litigation, the same as other digital data such as documents, sound recordings, photographs, emails, etc.

The right to review is not the same for homeowners. Video surveillance recordings are not included in the list of records authorized by the Davis-Stirling Act for members to review. Even so, boards can make them available if they so choose.

Full Access. Smaller associations sometimes stream their security feeds and give all owners a password so they can log in from their computers or phones and monitor the cameras in real time. It gives extra sets of eyes on the common areas.

Limited Access. Most associations will provide only limited access to members. There are times when a member would have a legitimate reason to review a particular recording. For example, an owner's car is vandalized and she wants to view footage that would show who caused the damage.

Records Storage. Digital images are generally stored for 30 days and then automatically erased to provide room for more images. The storage time is sometimes set for shorter periods (2-weeks, 10-days, 48 hours) depending on the amount of memory available and the number of camera feeds.

Privacy Concerns.
In California, associations can lawfully install video surveillance cameras in the common areas provided they are not viewing areas where people have a reasonable expectation of privacy, such as restrooms, locker rooms, or the interior of an owner’s unit. (Penal Code §647(j).)

RECOMMENDATION: Boards should adopt guidelines for how security camera data are stored, for what period of time, under what circumstances recordings may be viewed, and by whom.


SB 323 is the anti-consumer legislation pushed by the Center for California Homeowner Association Law (CCHAL) that takes away homeowner rights to adopt qualifications for who represents them on their boards of directors.

The bill also forces members to include their email addresses on membership lists, which are then turned over to other members upon demand. And, it allows owners to copy member's signatures on voting materials, thereby invading member's privacy and creating the potential for identity theft.

The legislation needs to be stopped. Following is information from the Chair of the California Legislative Action Committee. -Adrian Adams



You can harness the power of social media to stop SB 323. Tag your Assemblymember and let them know you oppose SB 323. You can use our infographic here with the draft post below.

[Tag your Assemblymember (ex: @AsmKevinMcCarty]: With 55,000 community associations in CA, SB 323 will cost homeowners more than 302 MILLION DOLLARS statewide. Vote no on SB 323. #californiacannotaffordSB323 #CommunitiesUnited

If you’re a constituent, please direct a message to your Assemblymember on Facebook and Twitter by including their names (including @) with information we drafted messages below for you to use. Feel free to edit as you’d like and use our VOTE NO on SB 323 graphic.

Bay Area Chapter Click Here
California North Chapter Click Here
Greater Los Angeles Chapter Click Here
Coachella Valley Chapter Click Here
Greater Inland Empire Chapter Click Here

If you have any questions, please contact us at [email protected]


Nathan McGuire, Esq.

Kudos #1. Without your website as a resource, boards would be in the dark on a lot of issues. Thank you for your website! -Ty W.

Kudos #2. Thank you to the partners and employees of Adams Stirling PLC who participate in putting out the Newsletter. It is a most valuable resource for keeping HOA boards informed. -John G.

Golf Course. I read last week's article about purchasing a golf course. Is there ever a circumstance when a board could approve the purchase of a golf course or other large asset without a vote of the membership?
RESPONSE: Yes. Although governing documents often require membership approval to purchase a large asset, that is not always the case. In some instances, governing documents authorize the board to acquire large amenities (such as a golf course). The authorizing language can be specific or generic. Even with authorizing language, the membership may need to vote on the funding. If the property can be purchased within the financial limitations imposed by the Davis-Stirling Act, membership approval is not required. If, however, a special assessment greater than 5% and/or a dues increase greater than 20% is needed, membership approval is required. If the purchase requires a loan, governing documents might also require membership approval.

Noisy Floor #1. Under California Building Code Section 1207.3, all floor coverings between units must meet an Impact Insulation Class (IIC) of 45 if "field-tested."Field testing requires acoustical consulting firms to conduct sound tests on a building. All units in a building have to conform with the CBC. If an owner does not comply, then the HOA should report the owner to the local city building and safety department. That usually gets a visit and a response. -Bruce K.

RESPONSE: Building codes set minimum standards for noise transmission and, as you noted, can sometimes be useful in getting the city involved when dealing with noise problems. Because an IIC of 45 is considered too noisy by many associations, they often adopt higher minimum standards. Following are recommended guidelines for different types of construction:

Housing Wood Construction Concrete Construction
Government 45 45
Entry-level 48 50
Standard 52 54
High 57 60
Luxury 60 62

Noisy Floor #2. When I was the VP of our HOA in Pasadena, we had a CC&R restriction that any wood flooring on the second or third floor was required to have a noise canceling barrier such as cork. We didn’t have any problems with noise once we added that and enforced it. -Rob L.

RESPONSE: In addition to cork, there are other sound deadening materials on the market. The amount of material placed under hardwood floors will vary depending on the type of construction, age of building, and desired level of quiet enjoyment the association wants to achieve. Boards can adopt architectural guidelines setting a particular standard. In addition, CC&Rs can be amended with those standards, which makes it easier to enforce if violations end up in court.


Excluding a Director. If the board decides to exclude a board member to discuss his threat of litigation, wouldn’t this require setting up an executive committee? -Lisa I.

RESPONSE: An executive committee is not required if the person voluntarily recuses himself from meetings involving his threatened (or actual) litigation. If he refuses, the board can form an executive committee (minus the interested director) to handle all matters related to the litigation.


Gun Toting Director. Some commercial policies have firearms exclusions, but I have never seen one on an HOA policy. Could the insurance company argue “intentional acts of the insured”, “criminal acts” or some such argument? It’s an interesting question, but probably not. The bottom line is that a wrongful death claim, with even a hint of HOA negligence, would more than likely have the HOA’s insurance company in a panic to settle before the case goes to a jury trial. -Patrick Prendiville, Prendiville Insurance Agency


Denying Records to Directors. Two directors on our board requested a copy of an engineering report of one of our clubhouses. The president and our general manager are denying access to the report. The general manager said it was only a draft. Do we have the right to see it? -Carol M.

RESPONSE: Although Corporations Code 8334 gives directors the absolute right to see all records, the courts have carved out exceptions. What you described does not fall into one of the exceptions. As a director, you have the right to see draft proposals and bids. I understand and agree with the president's desire not to distribute drafts since they may contain incomplete or inaccurate information. You could, however, go to the office and view the draft but not have a copy. Once the report is finalized, you can receive a copy.


Paid Directors. Are board members permitted to work for the association on a regular basis and receive payment? -L.E.V.

RESPONSE: Directors should never be paid for serving on the board. It eliminates their volunteer status and increases their exposure to potential liability. If directors are paid for services unrelated to serving on the board, it's legal. For small associations, it is not uncommon to pay a director to be a handyman on the project. Unfortunately, under last year's Dynamex vs. Superior Court, the director is deemed an employee of the association unless he can meet a stringent test to qualify as an independent contractor. That means payroll withholdings, overtime, etc.

For larger associations, paying directors for services creates negative optics. It gives the appearance of a breach of ethics. Since they can afford it, it is much better to hire an independent third party for such services. If there is a compelling reason to pay a director for an ongoing service, the director should immediately resign from the board and provide those services with appropriate invoicing.

Adrian J. Adams, Esq.

Boards can contact us for friendly, professional advice.

Adrian J. Adams, Esq.
Founder & Managing Partner

Noisy Hardwood Floors

Aug 25, 2019 0 Views 0 Comments

QUESTION: The owner of an upper unit installed a wood floor less than a year ago that disturbed the tenants below so much that they moved out because they could not stand the noise. The owner is refusing to change the flooring or put down carpeting because of allergy concerns. Can we amend our CC&Rs so that no wooden floors can be installed on the second floor? Can we make it retroactive?

ANSWER: You can amend your CC&Rs to prohibit hardwood flooring. Making it retroactive will not solve your problem. If someone has severe allergies, you must reasonably accommodate their request for a hardwood floor. All the person needs is a letter from a health care provider saying they need the flooring. Allowing it to be installed does not mean the person can destroy the quiet enjoyment of the resident below.

In a 2015 case, Ruben Munoz installed hardwood floors that transmitted intolerable noise to the owner below. Munoz refused to mitigate the noise claiming his wife suffered from severe allergies. The association sued Munoz. The court ordered him to install rugs over 80% of his floors. Munoz appealed and lost. (See
Ryland Mews HOA v. Munoz.)

Your allergic owner can keep her hardwood floors provided she gets a letter from a healthcare provider that the floors are necessary and she eliminates the intolerable noise into the unit below. That may mean installing hypo-allergenic rugs throughout her unit. If that doesn't work, she may need to hire a contractor to remove her hardwood floors and reinstall them with proper soundproofing material.

RECOMMENDATION: You should have legal counsel write a letter to your allergic owner that failure to eliminate the noise will result in a lawsuit against her. If your board is reluctant to incur legal fees, directors should know that failure to take appropriate action could result in a lawsuit against the association by the owner below for failure to enforce the CC&Rs.


QUESTION: The new president installed a timer on the water heater recirculating pump so that hot water only circulates during the hours of 6-10 am & 5-10 pm. During the remaining hours, it is necessary to open the water faucet a long time to obtain hot water. The timed schedule does not support owners with alternate lifestyle/work careers. Is it legal?

ANSWER: Yes, it's legal. No one is being deprived of hot water--it's only delayed getting to the faucet. The board has the authority to regulate the common areas for the benefit of the membership. That includes regulating the recirculating pump to save electricity. The trade-off is wasted water. It should be noted that installing a timer is the board's decision, not the president's.

RECOMMENDATION: With enough feedback, members might persuade the board to remove the timer. If that does not work, members can elect new directors who agree with their wishes.


QUESTION: For years, I have been asking my association to install handicapped access to our pool and walkways. They said it would be ugly and refused. Should the board make an effort to have these things installed once asked?

ANSWER: With some exceptions, the federal law known as the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) does not apply to homeowner associations. Other laws, however, do apply.

Under the Federal Fair Housing Act of 1988, boards cannot prevent residents from using their own pool lifts to get into and out of association pools. In addition, if you are handicapped, the board must reasonably accommodate your request for handicap access to common areas. That means allowing you to install appropriate handicapped walkways, rails and the like. The downside is that the installation is at your expense.
(Civ. Code §4760.)

RECOMMENDATION: Because many residents in associations are aging in place, I routinely advise boards to set aside funds in their reserves to make facilities friendly for the disabled. Even though associations are not subject to the ADA, members and their guests benefit when facilities are ADA compliant. The improvements do not need to be made all at once. They can be phased in over time as monies become available.


QUESTION: I'm the treasurer of my association, The board held an emergency meeting without notifying me. The discussion included repairs to my unit caused by a flood. Is it legal that I was not notified about the emergency meeting?

ANSWER: You should have been notified of the meeting. Even so, the board may have had good reason to exclude you from any discussion involving your unit. As an "interested director" you cannot vote on something that benefits you personally. However, you can join the meeting, provide information about the flood, and then excuse yourself from the meeting. That can change if you threaten to sue the association over the flood. At that point, the directors could exclude you entirely so they could consult with legal counsel.


I am pleased to announce that our website dedicated to commercial and industrial common interest developments has been significantly upgraded. The new website is modeled after our Davis-Stirling.com website so users can easily move between the two.

Commercial and industrial associations are growing in number and popularity throughout California. Because the laws affecting commercial associations are different from residential associations, we indexed the laws on a separate research site dedicated solely to these business oriented developments. You can see the website at CommercialCID.com.


In addition to alerts from the California Legislative Action Committee (CLAC) regarding new legislation, you can receive concise, fact-checked monthly legislative reports from Skip Daum, a former Registered Legislative Advocate for CAI.

You can learn more about Skip’s website and newsletter at HOALaws.com.

Recommended Reading. I was the president of my association in La Jolla for 23 years. I think I may have seen it all, a few lawsuits included. Your newsletter is essential for board members to read and use when evaluating their bylaws, planning effective meetings and benefiting from intuitive reserve studies. Committees need to know their goals, activity, reporting and expected results. Though I am inactive now I appreciate those who put their time in to make their properties safe, enjoyable and affordable. I will look for more of your work here! -Daniel D.


Self-Defense. I am on the board of directors and I’ve always carried my firearm concealed whenever I’m working outside on the property for the last 5 years I’ve had the permit. If I am involved in a lethal force incident in the common areas (which is everywhere outside the units), does the HOA face any type of civil liability arising out of a deadly force incident? I’ve seen the declaration page for our policy and in the main portion and in any riders attached there is no mention even ambiguously of coverage (or not) for this type of contingency. -Aaron E.

RESPONSE: If you are on the board of directors and you are involved in a lethal force incident in the common areas, there is a 99.999% certainty the association will be named in any lawsuits that might be filed. Associations have deep pockets and make attractive targets. A plaintiff's lawyer will name everyone even remotely connected to the incident and let the court sort out liability.

Liability? Is it possible the association would have liability? It would depend on the circumstances involved in the shooting. In 2012, the fatal shooting of 17-year old Trayvon Martin by a homeowner association's neighborhood watch leader made the association a target of litigation. Trayvon's parents filed a claim with the insurer and sued the association for wrongful death, pain and suffering, and loss of earnings and expenses.

Insurance Denied Coverage. The association's insurance, through Traveler’s, sued Trayvon Martin’s mother and the association seeking clarification from the court that it had no responsibility to defend the association or to pay any judgment over the teenager’s death. Travelers had denied coverage under the policy’s “wrongful act” exclusion. A settlement was reached between Trayvon's parents and the association for an undisclosed amount,which reported to be in excess of $1 million.

Insurance Exclusion? Whether your association's insurance covers an incident by a board member using a firearm is something you would have to discuss with your association's insurance agent. Maybe some of our readers with insurance expertise will have insight on this issue.


Buying a Golf Course. We have a special interest group that is actively trying to get our HOA to purchase a golf course that is being closed. This golf course is not part of the association. This group has loaded up the election for new board members with these special interest people. My question pertains to a potential conflict of interest of these future board members wishing to get the HOA to actively participate in this effort and the idea of using HOA funds to support and encourage this for-profit business. They have been holding secret meetings and even before the formal HOA board election have decided who will be president, treasurer etc. Once elected, what recourse do community members have that disagree with this path? Can board members be recalled if we find they plan to use HOA funds to promote this effort? -Sharon R.

RESPONSE: Our firm has worked with a number of associations on golf course issues. Some in situations similar to yours.

Property Values. There are many reasons why an association would have a strong interest in what might happen to an adjoining golf course. The potential impact on property values is foremost for active involvement. The fear is that the golf course will be abandoned and turn into an weed infested eyesore and then, at some later date, turned into high-density, low-income housing.

Conflict of Interest. There is no conflict of interest if candidates get on the board with the goal of acting in the best interests of the association. If, however, they have an ownership interest in the golf course, it creates a significant conflict of interest. Holding secret meeting before the election is legal since the candidates are not yet board members. Once on the board, the newly elected directors must comply with the Davis-Stirling Act and hold open meetings (except for executive session meetings).

Board Limitations. The board can use association funds to explore options related to the golf course, retain consultants, and incur legal expenses. In Finley v. Superior Court, a homeowners association used association funds to fight the conversion of the nearby El Toro Marine Base into a commercial airport. The association was sued and the court found in favor of the board's use funds in a political campaign to benefit the association.

The board cannot, by itself, commit the association to buying the golf course. Any purchase would require membership approval. Members with an opposing viewpoint can actively campaign against the purchase. The board should be diligent in getting legal counsel before taking any actions related to the golf course.


E-Bikes on Trails. Can an association that allows bicycles on paths and trails ban e-bikes? Level-2 e-bikes are slower than manually pedaled bicycles as they are limited to 20 mph. -Rod W.

RESPONSE: Yes, an association can ban e-bikes. Boards can regulate how trails are used. To that end, motorcycles are routinely banned from trails intended for bicycles. E-bikes are growing in popularity and drawing more attention. Should they be allowed on trails?

Level-2 E-Bikes. The average cyclist goes about 12 mph on regular bicycles. E-bikes (electric assisted bicycles) come in all shapes, sizes and speeds. Some can achieve speeds up to 28 miles per hour under motor assist. Level-2 e-bikes are not limited to 20 mph. Instead, it's the speed at which the electric motor stops assisting the rider.
The e-bike can still go as fast as the person can pedal. Because of the motor assist, e-bikes help cyclists maintain a higher average speed. One study in Europe found that riders of e-bikes had an average speed much higher than regular cyclists.

Test Period. If an association decides e-bikes create unsafe conditions, it can restrict them from paths and trails.
Perhaps your board can institute a test period with appropriate rules to see if e-bike riders create unsafe trail conditions. If there are no complaints, e-bikes could be allowed. If most riders are safe but one is a speed demon, the one could be suspended from using his e-bike on trails.


Does Age Matter? Do boards have to be balanced? If only younger people are on the board, older people’s needs are not addressed. -Lena R.

RESPONSE: No, there is no requirement that boards be balanced. In fact, some think being unbalanced is a qualification for serving on the board.


Commercial CID Crime Insurance. I am curious whether the fidelity bond requirements set forth in Civil Code §5806 apply to Commercial CIDs. I reviewed the website and did not find a clear answer. The definition of condominium association did not clearly indicate that it only applied to residential housing as opposed to commercial space. -Patrick C.  

RESPONSE: Fidelity bond requirements do not apply to Commercial CIDs. Civil Code §4202 provides that the Davis-Stirling Act does not apply to commercial and industrial common interest developments, as defined in Civil Code §6531. Correspondingly, Civil Code §6582 provides that the entire Commercial and Industrial Common Interest Development Act applies only to commercial or industrial common interest developments.

Adrian J. Adams, Esq.

Boards can contact us for friendly, professional advice.

Adrian J. Adams, Esq.
Founder & Managing Partner

Self-Defense in the Common Areas

Jul 14, 2019 0 Views 0 Comments

QUESTION: One of the owners was upset over homeless people trespassing our common areas. He claimed he has the right to use his firearm even on common area grounds to protect himself. I said that the law of self-defense does not apply. If a firearm is used inside his dwelling, it might be considered as self-defense but not in the common area.

ANSWER: Self-defense is not limited to a person's home. In California, you have the right to defend yourself and others against imminent harm regardless of location. The right to self-defense does not change based on whether they are inside your home or outside. The benefit of being inside your home is the presumption that you acted in self-defense. (Penal Code § 198.5.)

Firearms in the Common Areas.
Are there any limitations on firearms in the common areas? If the person is not licensed, California laws prohibiting the carrying a loaded firearm in any "public place" apply. (Penal Code §§ 25400, 25850, 26350, 26400.) The term “public place” is not defined, but most California courts have interpreted the restriction to apply if the area is reasonably accessible to the public without a barrier. (People v. Yarbrough (2008) 169 Cal.App.4th 303 (holding a private driveway may be a “public place” as applied to California’s loaded carry restrictions).

Common Areas. Are common areas a public place? If so, then California’s restrictions against the carrying a loaded firearm in the common areas apply. One court has already determined that private association meetings are "public" forums for the limited purpose of free speech by the membership. (Damon v. Ocean Hills.) It is likely courts would also deem common areas a "public place" for the association's membership. Therefore, anyone carrying a loaded firearm in the common areas would need to be licensed. Individuals with a license to carry a loaded firearm are generally exempt from California’s restrictions. (Penal Code §§ 25655, 26010.)

Self-Defense in Common Areas. Even though a person may lawfully defend himself with a firearm in the common areas, if he is not licensed to carry it in a public place, he could face prosecution for the unlawful possession of and or carrying of a firearm in connection with any incident involving it. In addition, if he shoots another person, he will need to prove:

1. He reasonably believed he or someone else was in imminent danger of being harmed;

2. He reasonably believed the use of force was necessary to defend against that danger; and

3. He only used the amount of force reasonably necessary to defend against that danger.

Thank you to attorney Matthew Cubeiro with the law firm of Michel & Associates for his assistance with this question. His firm has a number of practice areas, including firearms law. For more information on gun laws, see www.calgunlawsbook.com


According to a recent case from the Michigan Court of Appeals, the Fair Housing Act does not give owners of emotional support and service animals an unlimited right to accommodation.

No Fences Allowed. The Fox Bay Civic Association's CC&Rs prohibited fences. A disabled homeowner (Creswell) constructed a fence around her backyard without the Association's approval. She wanted to keep her emotional support and service dogs in her yard.

Invisible Fence. The Association determined that Creswell had alternatives that did not violate the CC&Rs, such as installing a dog run or invisible fence (which the Association offered to install). Creswell refused to take down her fence and the Association sued. The trial court agreed with the Association and Creswell appealed.

Not Mere Suggestions. The Michigan Court of Appeals also agreed with the Association and ruled that Creswell had reasonable alternatives without violating the CC&Rs. The court stated the CC&Rs were "deed restrictions" not "deed suggestions" and disabled owners were entitled to a reasonable accommodation not absolute accommodation. To read the case, see Fox Bay Civic Assn v Creswell.


QUESTION: I am on the Architectural Review Committee (ARC). I have questions about the Committee.

ANSWER: Since you have seven questions, I will number and answer each of them.

1. Who makes up the rules for this committee and who adopts them? And how can they be modified?

• Architectural guidelines can be drafted by the ARC but must be adopted by the board of directors in an open meeting after distribution to the membership for review and comment. (See "Adopting & Amending Rules.") Guidelines on how the ARC operates depends on the association and its governing documents. Some leave it entirely to the ARC. In others, the board establishes formal written guidelines so there is consistency from year to year on how the ARC operates.  

2. The chair does not allow homeowners to speak to the committee in opposition to a proposed project but the applicants can speak all they want in favor of their project. Is this fair and legal?

• It's not illegal. Fairness is another matter. My preference is to allow members to express their concerns. By no means do neighbors have veto authority over architectural submissions. Their input, however, might highlight something the ARC should take into consideration. 

3. If a project is disapproved by the ARC, the applicants have the right to appeal that decision to the board. But if the project is approved, no one, not even an adjoining neighbor, may appeal to the board! Is this fair and legal?

• By statute, disapproval by an architectural committee is subject to appeal to the board (unless the board is the ARC, in which case there is no one to appeal to). Approvals are not addressed by the Davis-Stirling Act. Even so, a neighbor who might be unhappy with an ARC approval can "appeal" the decision by (i) writing a letter to the board, (ii) raising the issue in Open Forum at the next open board meeting, and (iii) demanding internal dispute resolution.

4. Should not this committee produce minutes and post them somewhere? All the chair does is make an oral report of the ARC’s decisions at board meetings.

• Yes, architectural committees should keep a written record of their decisions. (See "Architectural Committee Minutes.")

5. There is a curious rule that if a homeowner wants to modify the appearance of less than 25% of his/her front yard, side yard or backyard, he/she can do so without ARC approval. Is this the law? It doesn’t make sense to me. They could put a statue of the Green Giant peeing in the garden and that would be OK??

No, the 25% landscaping rule is not a law, it is something your board adopted or may be in your CC&Rs. Statues of green giants peeing in the garden would normally be covered by your ARC guidelines. You should limit the giant is no more than ten feet tall and require it be tastefully rendered.

6. Is a homeowner in a gated community not also subject to the county planning department’s rules? Such as needing permission from a neighbor before installing a statue or whatever within a few feet of the property’s boundary?

• The Building Department addresses construction and setback issues, not garden statues. The placement of a statue is something the association should address.

7. Is there a state agency that oversees any of these issues?

• No, thank goodness. The state's involvement is rarely helpful. Oversight programs in other states has proven to be costly for associations and disruptive.


I am pleased to announce that attorney Farah Nourmand joined our firm. Prior to joining us, Farah oversaw a boutique law firm specializing in real estate, employment law, business and general civil litigation.

Corporate & Litigation Counsel. Farah's litigation practice included mediations, settlements, law and motion, eviction proceedings, and trials. On the transactional side, Farah oversaw day to day legal affairs as in-house counsel, negotiated and drafted commercial leases, determined property rights, conducted legal seminars, and performed due diligence related to purchases and sales.

Employment Law. Farah's employment law practice included preparing company policies, employee handbooks, and other employment-related documents. In addition, she advised clients on wage and hour claims and employee risk management.

Homeowner Associations. Farah also has practical experience with homeowner associations, having served as a president of her own condominium association for many years. Her experience is an asset when counseling boards of directors.

Education. Farah earned a Bachelor of Arts with a Major in English from the University of Southern California in Los Angeles. This was followed by a Juris Doctorate from the Whittier Law School in Costa Mesa, California. In addition to English, Farah is fluent in Persian and Spanish.

We are delighted to have such an experienced attorney join our team. If your association needs legal services, contact us for a proposal.

We are looking for experienced attorneys for our Los Angeles office.
Candidates should have at least five years of experience working with community associations.
We offer growth opportunities and excellent benefits. If you are interested, contact me at 800-464-2817 or by email. -Adrian Adams
I had more responses about Battling Betty than I could print. Following is a sampling:
Ready to Rumble #1. There is possibly more to this incident than is written. The old guy board member most likely said or did something to provoke battling Betty to say "step outside and I'll beat the crap out of you" Her first amendment right says that she can. The old codger (chicken that he was) didn't step outside to get the crap beat out of him, so there was no harm done! -PK
RESPONSE: Violence and threats of violence are never appropriate. The male board member did the right thing by not stepping outside. As noted in the next feedback response, there would have been no insurance to cover injuries and subsequent litigation if the two directors had stepped outside.
Ready to Rumble #2. Board members who willingly engage in physical altercations with others will not be covered by the HOA’s insurance policy. Insurance does not cover intentional acts, and it would be hard to argue that stepping into the ring to solve problems is unintentional. On the other hand, if an irate homeowner attacks a board member during a meeting, the association’s worker’s compensation insurance will likely cover injuries sustained by the board member. This is one of the reasons why it is important for associations to carry the insurance, even if they have no employees. Worker’s comp for non-profit associations with no employees is generally inexpensive (between $500-$700 per year), covers volunteer directors, and is an important part of an association’s insurance program. -Erik Strom, Strom-Richards Insurance Agency, Inc.
RESPONSE: I agree. I encourage all boards to purchase workers comp insurance even if they don't have employees.
Ready to Rumble #3. The inability of people to act like proper ladies and gentlemen isn’t confined to HOAs. Apparently, it’s becoming a widespread problem. Semper Fi -Wayne W.
Ready to Rumble #4. Regarding Battling Betty, am I the only woman who caught a whiff of male chauvinism in that scenario? Having been a provider of health care to women & having served recently on an HOA board, I can attest that misogyny is alive & well in the state of California. I certainly concur that threats of physical violence have no place at board meetings, but if the threat of violence was truly the issue in the questioner's mind, then what difference would it have made if the person leveling the threat was male or female? I can't help but suspect that "Betty" blew her top after having endured a tidal wave of abusive, belittling & offensive remarks from the "Old Man" & probably other male homeowners. Now might be a good time for you to address manifestations of gender bias during board meetings. Women own homes too, presumably with the same privileges & responsibilities as males. -Charlotte K.
RESPONSE: It's clear Betty blew her top. Whether male or female, such threats are unacceptable. If the male director engaged in abusive, belittling and offensive remarks, Betty and fellow directors should have immediately admonished and/or censured the director.
Ready to Rumble #5. I was on a dysfunctional board several years ago. On one night just prior to a board meeting, two directors were trying to pick a physical fight with a homeowner, which a lot of us witnessed. I decided to draw-up a censure for the BOD to vote-on at the next executive session which pertained to the two directors: the President and the Treasurer. They tried to prevent me from presenting it, but the manager insisted that they should read and vote on it. So they did, and the vote was 4-0 to reject the censure. (I abstained.) So censuring didn't work, but politicking in the community later did. -Kevin H.
RESPONSE: It's good that you tried the censure. It at least made clear where lines were drawn.
Calling Attorneys. Regarding your article on calling attorneys, does the president have to get permission from the board to call the attorney? Or, does the president have discretion? -M.M.
RESPONSE: Normally, the president has discretion. Even so, small associations with very limited budgets generally do not call legal counsel unless the board approves it.
Cat Meow Fines. Our new board adopted 12 pages of unreasonable rules, such as, if your cat meows for more than 5 minutes you will be fined. After 3 meowing violations, your cat will be removed. Our manager told us to suck it up and the board has the authority to make whatever rules they'd like without input from community members. I believe the community should be able to give feed back as to what they feel is best, not 5 individuals making it up. -Tatum N.

RESPONSE: I see from your email you are writing from S. Carolina. In California, we keep our cats so well fed they spend all their time purring or sleeping. If a cat meows, we drop everything and give it more food. I don't know about S. Carolina laws when it comes to adopting rules. In California, boards must circulate proposed rules and take into account membership feedback before adopting them. If the membership finds the rules to be excessive, they have up to 30 days from notice of the rule's adoption to call a meeting to reverse the rule. (See "Petition to Reverse Rule.")

Adrian J. Adams, Esq.

Boards can contact us for friendly, professional advice.

Adrian J. Adams, Esq.
Founder & Managing Partner

Ready to Rumble

Jun 17, 2019 0 Views 0 Comments

ANSWER: I know a Marine recruiter who would like to talk to your aggressive board member. A year in the mountains of Afghanistan might burn off some of her aggression. If the Marines deem her unmanageable and decline to recruit her, there are other things the board can do.

Don't Engage. Under no circumstances should the threatened director engage "Battling Betty" in a boxing match. No good would come of it. Any physical injuries and subsequent litigation would likely not be covered by the association's insurance. Perhaps readers with insurance expertise could comment on this next week.

Censure. Any director, including the person being threatened, can make a motion to censure Ms. Betty. Such behavior is unacceptable and the board should express its displeasure in the form of a censure. For more information on when and how to implement a censure, see "Censuring Directors."

Ethics Policy. Your board should adopt an ethics policy. In addition to covering a director's fiduciary duties, it should cover things such as proper interaction with employees and vendors, proper decorum by directors, and conflicts of interest. See sample "Ethics Policy." While you are at it, you should also adopt an "Anti-Harassment Policy."

Lawyer Letter. To discourage future threats of physical harm, the board can direct the association's legal counsel to send a letter to Ms. Betty admonishing her and making it clear such behavior would result in a restraining order if it were to continue. Sad to say, our firm has obtained many "workplace violence" restraining orders over the years to protect association employees and board members from abusive residents. (Code Civ. Proc. §527.8.) On occasion, we've had to threaten a board member with legal action, but that is usually sufficient to stop the bad behavior.

Temporary Restraining Order. If threats of violence continue, the association's legal counsel can seek a temporary restraining order (TRO) against the misbehaving director without a hearing or notice to the other side. The TRO lasts until there is a court hearing (usually in 15 to 25 days). The association's legal counsel can take action against a board member because the attorney does not represent directors but, rather, represents the corporation which speaks through its directors. There are times when the corporation may need to take action against a director.

Credible Threat of Violence. A hearing date follows the TRO at which time a protective order may be issued if the court finds there was a credible threat of violence against by Ms. Betty. A “credible threat of violence” means a knowing and willful statement or course of conduct that would place a reasonable person in fear for his or her safety, or the safety of his or her immediate family, and that serves no legitimate purpose. (Code Civ. Proc §527.8(b)(2).)

Up To Three Years. A workplace violence restraining order is good for up to three years. (Domestic violence restraining orders can last up to five years.) Battling Betty may be required to turn in any weapons she posses and stay away from the protected director a prescribed distance, i.e., 50 or 100 yards. That means Ms. Betty might not be able to attend board meetings except by telephone.

RECOMMENDATION: Your board has a range of options available to it. Talking to the uncivil board member may be sufficient to stop her bad behavior. If not, decisive action should be taken by the board. Otherwise, there could be potential liability for failing to act in the event injuries occur.


QUESTION: Our board president calls the HOA attorney on every question that arises, regardless of significance or the cost of those calls to the HOA. What can be done to reign him in?

RESPONSE: I've not met your president but I already like him. Associations face increasing potential liability with the myriad of new laws added to the books each year. It is difficult for large associations to comply with all of them and virtually impossible for small associations. (The Legislature needs to provide some relief for small associations.)

Volunteer Under Pressure. Most board members already have busy lives and are volunteering their time to make decisions on matters over which they have no expertise, such as insurance, roofing problems problems, contract negotiations, safety issues, water damage liability, employment law issues (hiring, firing, disciplinary actions), harassment claims, requests for reasonable accommodation, architectural disputes, unusual or excessive records requests, etc. Boards have the added pressure of doing this with owners nipping at their heals, second-guessing every decision, and threatening lawsuits.

Business Judgment Rule. To avoid personal liability, board members are required to make decisions (i) in good faith, (ii) in a manner which the directors believe to be in the best interests of the corporation, and (iii) with such care, including reasonable inquiry, as an ordinarily prudent person in a like position would use under similar circumstances. (Corp. Code §7231(a).) Boards may rely on the advice of persons they believe to be reliable and competent in the matters being presented. (Corp. Code §7231(b).) This means boards can rely on CPAs for financial and tax issues, attorneys for legal issues, etc.

Legal Budget. Boards are increasingly dependent on legal counsel from attorneys specializing in common interest developments. Too many associations, however, are significantly under-budgeted for legal expenses. Some boards innocently believe they can make it through the year without incurring any legal expenses. All it takes is one major flood or, worse, one deranged homeowner to spike an association's legal fees.

Daily Calls. Calling an attorney daily with questions is usually not necessary (unless there is some significant legal matter underway). To keep costs down, some law firms, including ours, offer a retainer program that allows free unlimited brief phone calls (emphasis on brief). This allows the president to pick up the phone and call legal counsel without fear of being charged for every call. That means he/she can quickly find out if an issue can be resolved without legal involvement or is one that could spin out of control unless legal counsel steps in.

RECOMMENDATION: Investigate setting up a retainer agreement with your law firm. In addition, increase your budget for legal counsel. Legal assistance is a necessary business expense that can protect associations from costly litigation and potential liability (that could lead to special assessments). Remember where you live. This is California--one of the most litigious states in the nation. An ounce of prevention...


Changing the Look. Regarding building aesthetics, you rightly say that it is impossible to please everyone. However, everyone had a choice to buy or not if they didn't like the aesthetics. In my opinion, to later force an arbitrary change is wrong. In this case, there could be privacy and security issues with front door windows. It has been my experience that board members do not do the proper research to make the decisions that they do. -Paul C.

RESPONSE: As I noted in my last newsletter, feelings run hot when it comes to aesthetic issues. You may not like it but the Supreme Court has already noted that associations have the authority to make decisions for the general welfare that may harm the interests of an individual owner. (Nahrstedt v. Lakeside Village.)


No on SB 323. Thanks for the alert about SB 323. It was referred to the judiciary Committee, too. Gives two chances to stop or amend it. -Henry C.

No on SB 323. May I also suggest sending messages to Governor Newsom, urging him to veto the bill if it should reach his desk. -Michael E.

RESPONSE: We aren't ready for emails to Governor. If this dreadful legislation passes both houses and lands on the Governor's desk, we will alert everyone and ask for letters to the to Governor. In the meantime, anyone who has not yet sent a letter, please click here to send a pre-drafted email to the Assembly Housing Committee.


Motus Insurance Debate. Thank you for continuing to provide one of the best educational resources out there for this industry. While the Motus program has been a hot topic in the newsletter, I think the recent note on it requires a bit of clarification. I don’t think that Motus inferred that master coverage was currently needed to obtain personal coverage. They’d stated that because such a small percentage of condo owners carried personal HO-6 policies, the uninsured majority don’t currently have a good option for earthquake insurance unless the HOA carries a master policy (since earthquake insurance is typically a companion policy to the HO-6 policy).

On California Earthquake Authority (CEA) not being able to do the proper underwriting, this is true as their pricing is based purely on coverage options and geographic territory, not actual policyholder exposure. For instance, an owner in a 400-unit condominium association will have higher exposure to loss assessment than an owner in a 12-unit condominium association, but the CEA will price both owners’ policies identically if they’re in the same geographic territory and carry the same coverage options. I’m a big fan of CEA, though the broad-strokes approach taken for loss assessment pricing is certainly a shortcoming, especially in certain parts of the state where loss assessment really drives premiums. -Brian Kalmenson, Commercial Insurance Specialist, Kirk Miller Insurance Agency

RESPONSE: Discussion of the pros and cons of Motus insurance has been interesting. At this point, I will leave it to the insurance industry to sort out. Those who wish to pursue this further should talk to their insurance agent.

Adrian J. Adams, Esq.

Boards can contact us for friendly, professional advice.

Adrian J. Adams, Esq.
Founder & Managing Partner

Anonymous Election Flyers

Jun 9, 2019 0 Views 0 Comments

QUESTION: We have someone distributing an election flyer with false statements and inaccuracies with no attribution. Can we add to our election rules that flyers must identify who wrote them?

ANSWER: I believe you can and there are good reasons for doing so.

Reasons for Anonymity. Sometimes a flyer is anonymous because the writer fears retaliation. From my experience, that makes up only 10-20% of flyers. The other 80-90% of anonymous flyers are hit pieces. The writer does not identify himself so he can freely engage in misstatements, half-truths and inflammatory rhetoric, whether it be against candidates for the board or existing board members.

Venomous Flyer. In one association I worked with, someone distributed a venomous flyer throughout the community in the dead of night. The flyer targeted a newly elected director who was the swing vote on a divided board. The next morning, the director found the flyer and read it. He suffered a stroke, went into a coma and died. It put the community into an uproar. The board deadlocked and a provisional director was appointed by the court to fill the open seat. The author of the toxic flyer was never identified.

Benefits of Attribution. As a result of this and other experiences involving anonymous flyers, I am a fan of requiring all flyers identify the author. Doing so helps moderate inflammatory rhetoric and untruths. Knowing the source also helps readers evaluate the credibility of the information.

Plea to Not Elect. In another association, one director mistreated staff and was particularly disruptive at board meetings making it difficult to accomplish any business. When the problem director's seat was up for election and she decided to run for another term, the other four directors signed a flyer which they distributed at their own expense describing all the problems they had with the director. They pleaded with members not to reelect her and made it clear they would all resign if she were reelected. She was not reelected.

Statute. Associations cannot prohibit flyers but they can regulate them. The Davis-Stirling Act allows for the distribution of flyers without prior permission subject to reasonable hours and in a reasonable manner. (
Civ. Code §4515(b)(5).) The reasonable hours and manner provision allows associations to regulate how late people can knock on doors to hand out leaflets, affixing flyers to walls, doors, windows, vehicles, etc. In my opinion, it also allows for the requirement that flyers identify their authors.

California Election Code. The reasonableness of this requirement can be gauged by similar requirements in California's election laws. The Political Reform Act (PRA) of 1974 regulates elections so as to foster public trust in the political system. To promote transparency, the PRA requires political ads include a disclosure that they are “Paid for by,” followed by the name of the committee. "Committee" is broadly defined to include a person or entity making independent expenditures on candidates or ballot measures.

RECOMMENDATION: Not everyone will agree with my recommendation on transparency, i.e., that flyers identify their author. Boards should consult with legal counsel if this becomes an issue in their association.


QUESTION: I purchased my condo four years ago. I liked the wood front doors. The president passed a rule that everyone replace their front doors with a fiberglass door with windows. I did not want windows in my door and they are charging $1,800 for the new door. This is changing the look, which is why I purchased my home in the first place. Is this legal?

ANSWER: Yes, it's legal. Maintenance and architectural decisions are primary functions of an association. Your CC&Rs probably devote a fair amount of ink to both topics.

Board Decision. It is unlikely the president is doing this by himself. One director cannot pass rules or impose assessments. Most boards I work with have a committee recommend aesthetic changes, give notice of the proposed changes, and invite comments before submitting a project such as you describe to the board for approval.

Cost Approval. The $1,800 price tag you mentioned also indicates full board involvement. The president does not have the authority to require members to pay $1,800 to change their door. Fellow board members would be required to approve the project and its cost.

OBSERVATION: When it comes to aesthetics, it is impossible to please everyone.
As the Court of Appeals noted, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. (Clark v. Rancho Santa Fe.) A door style you love, others will object to and vice versa. In the scores of redecorating projects I've been involved in, I've never had one where every person was happy with the outcome. We always had critics of paint colors, carpet selection, artwork and cost. The California Supreme court observed that "anyone who buys a unit in a common interest development with knowledge of its owners association's discretionary power accepts the risk that the power may be used in a way that benefits the commonality but harms the individual." (Nahrstedt v. Lakeside Village.)


The State Senate passed SB 323 and it is now in the Assembly where it will be voted on by the Housing Committee. This problem bill prohibits an association from establishing qualifications for board members and adds a number of burdensome election requirements.

Thank you to all 800 of you who submitted letters to Senators. While our efforts were strong, we now focus our attention on the Assembly Housing Committee. Here’s how you can help:

1. Send a pre-drafted letter to the Assembly Housing Committee.

2.  Share with others the harmful effects of SB 323 and forward this information to your own email lists.

3.  Get involved on CLAC's Facebook and Twitter and LinkedIn channels. Like and share our posts to help us reach more people. You can also tag or direct a message to your Assemblymember with our posts asking them to Vote NO on SB 323. Many are on Twitter.

4.  We’re posting video updates to keep you informed on the latest legislative news. Subscribe to our YouTube Channel for new video alerts.

Thank you for helping us make an impact. The more opposition we generate, the more influence we have. So, please join us and make your voice heard!

Nathan McGuire, Esq.

NOTE FROM ADRIAN: For information on the problems with SB 323, see our February 24 newsletter; see "Feedback" in our March 31 newsletter; and the "Feedback" section in our April 28 newsletter. The bill puts felons, delinquents and litigants on boards; prohibits associations from ever suspending voting rights; adds another 30 days to the election process; and takes away privacy rights. I urge everyone to send a pre-drafted letter to the Assembly Housing Committee. -Adrian Adams


Great Newsletter. Always SO impressed with what you're doing. If I could start my career over again, would get into this area on some basis. And your site is a major, major resource. Too bad that our board never wants to check it out, much less pay attention to anything in it. -Monica F.

RESPONSE: Many thanks for your kind words. If you want to attend law school, let's talk.

First Class Condition. I’m not sure why developers use some of the CC&R language they do. I agree with you that first-class condition, top quality, or like new would all be problematic terms for even a conscientious HOA to comply with, but the one thing those terms clearly are meant to convey is don’t let the property run down. Don’t defer maintenance to a point where it is obvious. -Tony V.


Incentives to Vote #1. I suggest not to raffle off wine or any type of drink requiring someone to be over the age of 21 in the state of California. If you use just the envelope with the name and address on it, it does not identify the age, and if the winner is under 21, the unknowns could be a disaster for the HOA. So my food for thought would just be a gift card, for types of products where alcohol cannot be purchased with it. -Jim W.

Incentives to Vote #2. First let me say THANK YOU for the information that you provide us thru your newsletter. Your recent newsletter "Voiding an Election" was timely. Our president resigned because he moved. The board elected our vice president as president. Our bylaws state: "In the event of a vacancy on the governing board, his successor shall be selected by the remaining members of the board and shall serve for the unexpired term of his predecessor." When the president resigned, his term on the board was to expire this September (2019). The board member (VP) who took his place as president had been elected for a term of office on the board for three (3) years (2021). Which takes precedence? "the unexpired term of his predecessor" (ending in September) or the elected board member whose term ends in 2021? -Joe C.

RESPONSE: You are mixing apples and oranges. There are two different offices. One is that of director elected to the board by the membership. The second is an officer selected by the board. The quote from your bylaws deals with the selection of a replacement director to fill the seat held by your former president. That replacement director is on the board through September 2019, at which point he/she is up for election. The office of president conferred on your VP can run through 2021 (provided the board is happy with the person's performance as president). See Chart of Differences Between Officers and Directors.

Incentives to Vote #3. I am running for our board. Talking to people I have found that most of the non-voters don’t read the candidates statements and don’t follow any of the issues. I think we are better off if they don’t vote. -Finn M.

RESPONSE: Cajoling people to vote so an association can meet quorum does not produce the best results. That's one of the reasons I recommend eliminating quorum requirements for elections.

Incentives to Vote #4. What is the point of voting for the board when we are never told the results of the vote and never given a list of the board members or their contact information. -Suzanne N.

RESPONSE: Someone needs to point out Civil Code §5120(b) to the board and manager. It requires the tabulated results of an election be promptly reported to the board of directors, recorded in the minutes of the next meeting of the board, made available for review by the membership, and within 15 days of the election, reported to the membership. (See a sample notice.)

Incentives to Vote #5. Like you, I do not like the idea of penalizing people for not voting. Voting is both a right and a privilege. With all due respect, I do not like the idea of bribing people or giving them incentives to vote either. If the board gives bounty, it also puts a thumb on the scale to vote for people on the board. -Denyse B.

RESPONSE: My first choice is to amend bylaws to eliminate quorum requirements for the election of directors. It simplifies everything. If it's not possible to amend the bylaws, then bribe members to vote. I've found that people prefer incentives over punishment.


Motus Insurance. As always, I enjoy your newsletter. But I have a suggestion on this one regarding the information provided by Motus Insurance. In paragraph 2 of the response from Motus, it is indicated that a California Earthquake Authority (CEA) policy cannot be purchased without a companion HO-6 policy in force for a condominium unit owner. This is true, but the final sentence of this paragraph suggests that a condominium owner “cannot purchase earthquake insurance when there is no master policy in place.” This is not accurate.

The purchase of earthquake insurance through the CEA (or a competitor) by a condominium unit owner is subject to the HO-6 purchase, not the purchase of coverage by the community. In paragraph 3 the confusion is, I believe, increased with the statement that “The CEA cannot do the underwriting necessary for an individual living in an association without a master policy.” Perhaps what was meant by this is the CEA does not offer enough coverage to protect the exposure of a condominium unit owner living in a community without a master earthquake insurance policy in place, because the typical exposure is greater than the maximum coverage limit available to the unit owner. -Michael Berg (MBA, CIRMS, CMCA), Berg Insurance Agency

Adrian J. Adams, Esq.

Boards can contact us for friendly, professional advice.

Adrian J. Adams, Esq.
Founder & Managing Partner

Penalize Members Who Don't Vote

May 19, 2019 0 Views 0 Comments

QUESTION: I am Secretary of a 160-unit development that is less than 1/2 complete. Once the developer turns over control, I would like to restate our governing documents. Elections are costly and their success depends on member participation. What are your thoughts on fining people who don't vote?

ANSWER: There is nothing in the Davis-Stirling Act or the Corporations Code that would prevent you from fining people who don't vote. It might even be effective. However, I don't like penalizing people who choose not to exercise their rights. Rather than punish them, there are two approaches you should try first: (i) offer incentives for members to vote and (ii) eliminate quorum requirements for the election of directors.

Incentives to Vote. The board can raffle off gift cards, bottles of wine, a dinner at a local restaurant, etc. The ballot envelope with the person's name and address can be used as the raffle ticket for the drawing. Normally, any entity that uses a raffle to raise funds must register with the Office of the Attorney General. (Penal Code 320.5) However, raffles are exempt if they do not require any of the participants to pay for a chance to win.

Eliminate Quorum. The best solution is to amend your bylaws to eliminate quorum requirements for the election of directors. "A quorum shall be required only if so stated in the governing documents of the association or other provisions of law." (Civ. Code 5115(b).) Eliminating quorum makes board elections like all other elections at the municipal, state and federal levels. In other words, elections are determined by those who are interested enough to vote.

RECOMMENDATION: Try offering incentives in your next election. If that doesn't work, amend your bylaws. We routinely eliminate quorum requirements in documents we restate. It makes elections thereafter very easy to hold.


QUESTION: How do you handle a candidate withdrawing from an election, then 3 days later after being notified by the president that his withdrawal had been accepted, deciding to run again.

ANSWER: If the nominating period closed after he withdrew, your flip-flopper is out of luck. If nominations are still open, he gets to self-nominate and appear on the ballot.

RECOMMENDATION: If the person previously served on the board and was flip-flopping on issues like a fish out of water, someone should let the membership know he shouldn't be on the board. Sending a letter cannot be done at association expense (Civ. Code §5135), it must be done by an individual or group at their own expense.


A new case was published last week that should cause everyone to pick up their CC&Rs and carefully read the maintenance requirements.

Water Damage. A pipe on the roof broke causing water damage to the plaintiff's bedroom. The association repaired the pipe and roof but not the bedroom. Plaintiffs sued the association for breach of contract and negligence.

No Inspections or Maintenance. The trial court granted a nonsuit in favor of the association. The appellate court reversed. The court noted that the CC&Rs required the association to keep the project in a first-class condition. Witnesses testified the association failed to perform preventative maintenance and roof pipes had not been inspected or maintained in years.

First-Class Condition.
I don't like such language in CC&Rs because "first-class" is hard to define. It's also at odds with reserving for replacement. If a roof has a 20-year life, is it no longer "first-class" when it's ten years old, thereby obligating the association to replace it? Whenever my office restates documents, we replace "first-class" with more appropriate language.

RECOMMENDATION: The primary purpose of an association is to maintain the common areas. Boards should not defer maintenance, especially if their CC&Rs require the project be kept in a first-class condition. Failure to do so could result in liability if persons or property are damaged as a result of common area component failures. (See "Sands v. Walnut Gardens.)

ON SB 323

Senate Bill 323 (Wieckowski) passed the Senate Housing Committee and is now on the Senate floor. The bill will likely be heard and voted on this week.

It is critical we STOP this problematic bill and it’s negative impacts on community associations. If you recall, SB 323 prohibits an association from establishing qualifications for board members and adds a number of requirements which are unnecessary.

We need your help to STOP SB 323. We’ve updated our online advocacy letter to go directly to your senator asking them to Vote NO on SB 323. Simply send our pre-drafted letter to your legislator by clicking here.

You can read more about the troublesome impacts of SB 323 on our Legislative Session Hot Bills page. If you have any questions, you can contact us at [email protected]

Nathan McGuire, Esq.
Chair of CAI-CLAC

Earthquake Insurance. My last two newsletters had comments in the "Feedback" section from homeowners for and against earthquake insurance called "Motus." Following is a response from the President of Motus Insurance, describing the product:

"While Motus is in complete alignment with your firm's answer that the best insurance is a master earthquake policy that forces all members to participate in the foundational layer of recovery after an earthquake. In a perfect world, all HOAs should have a master policy with full coverage.

Roughly 32,000 condominium associations in California do not have a master earthquake policy. In addition, there are currently 2.5 to 2.8 million condo-like units in California. However, there are only 900,000 HO-6 policies in force. The California Earthquake Authority (CEA) and its competitors require an HO-6 policy in order to buy individual condo earthquake insurance. That means 1.6 to 1.9 million condominium owners cannot purchase earthquake insurance when there is no master policy in place.

The CEA cannot do the underwriting necessary for an individual living in an association without a master policy. They can only offer $100,000 and their rates are usually 3-5 times higher than their single-family home rate. Also, since the CEA is defined as a residential carrier they can't offer coverage for any common area foundations, structures, garages, utilities, etc.

Motus addresses these problems, which is why the Department of Insurance approved the product. It allows carriers to offer commercial rates and coverages to individuals for the first time, ever. With Motus, the association is an additional insured on the loss assessment and interior coverage.

With Motus, the association does not overwhelm its budget. This is for boards that want a master policy but can't afford it." -Daniel Wallis, President, Motus Insurance Services. Attached is a PDF presentation describing the insurance.

Adrian J. Adams, Esq.

Boards can contact us for friendly, professional advice.

Adrian J. Adams, Esq.
Founder & Managing Partner

Voiding an Election

May 12, 2019 0 Views 0 Comments

QUESTION: Is there any California statute that allows for voiding an HOA election? Our board is in the process of voiding our election because of ballot irregularities and is holding a new election starting with the distribution of new ballots.

ANSWER: Yes, elections can be restarted. Civil Code §5110(c)(8) states that an inspector of elections may "Perform any acts as may be proper to conduct the election with fairness to all members..." If election irregularities are such that the balloting would produce an outcome that could not be trusted, an inspector could void the election and request a new one.

Board Decision. An election could also be restarted by the board of directors. For example, if a candidate on the ballot was not qualified (Civ. Code §5105(a)(3)) or the ballot failed to provide for cumulative voting as required by the governing documents
(Civ. Code §5115(c)) or a second envelope was not included with the first (Civ. Code §5115(a)) the board could stop the election and restart it with proper ballots and envelopes. The goal is to have an election that reflects the will of the membership and not end up in court due to irregularities.

RECOMMENDATION: Over the years, I've had to advise boards to restart their election with new ballot materials. So as to minimize confusion, I have them use a different colored paper for the ballots and envelopes. Whenever in doubt, boards should pick up the phone and call legal counsel.


QUESTION: I own a townhouse with two spaces in front of my garage and two inside my garage. Recently, the manager asked to see a picture of the inside of my garage. The CC&Rs require they be used for cars. I have two vehicles in the garage. Do I have to show a photo or let them inspect my garage? They have not asked other owners to see inside their garages.

ANSWER: Yes, the manager can inspect your garage. The purpose of parking rules is to preserve property values by keeping the development from looking like a parking lot.

Garage Conversions. When it comes to garages, people have a way of converting them into storage units, gyms, home offices, game rooms, bedrooms, etc. If all the board or management sees is two cars parked in front of your garage, they have no way of knowing if you are properly using your garage for parking cars. Since they have a duty to enforce the governing documents, they have a duty to ask.

Discriminatory Enforcement. It has been my experience that owners asked to comply with the rules often assume discriminatory enforcement. Without any evidence, they claim that no one else has been asked to follow the rules. That's possible but rarely the case. Management often has multiple notices out and is trying to persuade people to follow the rules without resorting to hearings and fines whenever possible.

Storing Vehicles.
Also, if you are not using the vehicles in your garage but simply storing them, you might consider renting a storage unit for your vehicles or selling them so you can park your other two cars in your garage.

Reasonable Rules. In a 2011 case, Sui v. Price, an owner with a
1987 Mitsubishi van parked it in his exclusive use parking space and left it there when the engine broke down. It stayed inoperable and did not move from 2003 to 2007. After repeated warnings, the association towed the eyesore. Sui sued the association and its president. Sui told the court he refused to move the van because his family, including his children, developed a strong bond with the van. "It was part of their family, just like some people with their pets." The court was not persuaded. It found the association's actions reasonable and ruled against Sui.

RECOMMENDATION: As the Sui case demonstrates, members are subject to rules adopted by their association. In your case, the manager is trying to do her job. A photo emailed from your cell phone to the manager only takes a few seconds. It's not the end of the world for you to send it (unless your garage was converted into storage or has someone living in it).


On April 22, a case was handed down by the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit involving segregated swimming for men and women.

Reasonable Accommodation. The Country Place Condominium Association is a 55+ community located in Lakewood, New Jersey. Approximately two-thirds of the association's residents are Orthodox Jews. The association segregated swim times for men and women to accommodate Jewish religious beliefs related to modesty.

The board adopted rules making over two-thirds of all swimming hours throughout the week sex-segregated. An owner who wanted to swim with his wife, who had disabilities after a series of strokes and needed pool therapy to recover, was fined for violating the policy. He sued the association alleging violation of the federal Fair Housing Act.

Sex Discrimination. Although the case involved sex discrimination versus religious beliefs, the association did not raise religious accommodation as a defense. As a result, the only issue before the court was the segregation of swim times based on gender. The court decided this was a clear case of sex discrimination in violation of the Fair Housing Act.

Discrimination Sometimes Justified. The concurring opinion noted that certain other federal circuit courts covering different parts of the country (including the Ninth Circuit) have concluded that policies which are discriminatory on their face may be justified if it can be shown that the policies benefit the protected class or respond to legitimate safety concerns. (Curto v. Country Place.)

RECOMMENDATION: It's unfortunate the association did not raise religious accommodation as a defense. It would have been interesting to see how the court balanced competing interests. Whenever boards contemplate adopting restrictions based on gender or age (children), they will likely be deemed discriminatory. When rules touch those areas, consult legal counsel.

Open Forum Policy #1. Regarding "a reasonable time limit for ALL members to speak," does that mean everyone should have a right to speak for a specified amount of time, or that the length of the open forum can be limited such that not everyone is allowed to speak? Our board is limiting the length of open forum. I think everyone should be allowed to speak. If there are too many people wanting to speak, there is probably something wrong with the way things are being run. And what if one person has multiple issues to bring up? -P.C.

RESPONSE: Yes, the wording of the statute is problematic. It states, "A reasonable time limit for all members of the association to speak...shall be established by the board." (Civ. Code §4925(a).)

Extended Comment Period. As I noted in last week's newsletter, the board can extend the time for open forums, but at some point comments become repetitious. Moreover, the board has business to conduct.
The longest meeting I ever attended started at 6:00 p.m. and went to 4:00 a.m. the next morning. The president decided to let everyone speak and then speak again before conducting the board's business. By the time the meeting was over the next morning, everyone was exhausted. That is no way to run a meeting.

City Councils. Sometimes it's helpful to see how cities handle similar situations. Chapter 2, paragraphs 7 and 11 of the "Rules of the Los Angeles City Council" address public comment periods. Citizens are limited to one minute of public comment with a minimum ten minutes for the session. The city council can provide an opportunity for the public to address the council on each agenda item before or during the council’s consideration of the item. Boards have that same discretion. The Los Angeles City Council has more flexibility than HOA boards because it meets three times a week. If it met once a month as most association boards do and allowed unlimited public comments, they would never get any business done.

RECOMMENDATION: Having experienced an open-ended forum first-hand, I am opposed to unlimited sessions. They can become filibusters to prevent boards from conducting business. Unlike city council members, board members are volunteers. They need to get the association's business done so they can return to their families and jobs. If some homeowners
aren't able to speak to the board during a particular open forum, they can still write letters and appear at the next board meeting.

Open Forum Policy #2. Like a rule, an HOA board policy [regarding open forum time limits] must go through the regular board approval process with a board vote at a board meeting. Correct? -Robert M.

RESPONSE: No, that's not correct. Time limits are not monthly agenda items; it's a matter of boards conducting their meetings. The person conducting the meeting, normally the president, can adjust times from meeting to meeting depending on the circumstances. I covered this in my April 28 newsletter.


Dog Park. I enjoy reading your newsletter. I just read the item addressing the dog park. This has come up a number of times. This is the poster child of a board assuming a liability it is not obligated to assume. I personally like dog parks and think there are many positives. However, this is the type of decision that should not be made without discussing the impact on it general liability coverage. Specifically, will incidents such as attacks on other dogs or attacks on people be covered under the association’s general liability policy? Will there be limitations on non-association members? Will the association require an indemnification by the dog owner? Will the association require confirmation that the dog be up to date on its shots? I recommend that the board consult with its community association insurance professional. -Joel Meskin, McGowan & Company Insurance

RESPONSE: Good point. Insurance should always be considered when making significant changes to the common areas. In addition to consulting legal counsel when planning a dog park, boards should talk to their insurance agent to make sure their policy provides the coverage they need.


Rule Change #1. I see your version of the Davis-Stirling Act says members must be given 28 days notice. Did this just change in the last year or two? It used to say 30 days. -Rick L.

RESPONSE: Last year's Senate Bill 261 changed the notice requirement for proposed operating rules from 30 to 28 days.
The change took effect January 1 of this year. To see all the changes in laws from year to year, go to "New Laws."

Rule Change #2. I love your newsletters. In your most recent email, the discussion "Policy or Rule" implied that Civil Code §4360 applies for all boards contemplating rule changes. Based on my research, notice and approval of a rule change only applies when a board has the authority to adopt rules granted in the governing documents. Some boards do not have this authority. -Gary R.

RESPONSE: Yes, my response assumes the board has authority to adopt rules. Rulemaking authority is covered on our website. I also covered it in my February 10, 2019 newsletter.


Cumulative Voting. In your last newsletter you mentioned cumulative voting. Cumulative voting is a double edged sword. If can help you or harm you. We live in a complex where only about 20% of owners live here full time. If someone gets on the board who is an obstructionist, it is almost impossible to get them off the board because they are incumbents. So yes, I can see if someone has enough supporters cumulative voting can help them stay on the board. Not having cumulative voting can also prevent new people from getting on the board and also makes it almost impossible to get problem incumbents off the board. So cumulative voting is a double edge sword that, based on your circumstances, can both help or hurt you. -Ray O.

RESPONSE: After weighing all the pros and cons, I come down on the side of eliminating cumulative voting (and proxies, and quorum requirements).


Earthquake Insurance. [In response to last week's feedback on insurance] This is not a healthy decision for a board to make. Our board is considering the MOTUS insurance policy that is exactly what this woman is describing! I don’t believe any board of directors would be fulfilling its obligation by voting to accept an earthquake insurance policy such as the one noted. That plan leaves those owners who decline the plan open for possible financial ruin if there is an earthquake. That would also leave the association with damaged buildings. I think it is obvious at this point that the association needs to buy an earthquake insurance plan, one that demonstrates a board responsibility to all owners, making sure everyone is covered. -Angela D.

RESPONSE: A large earthquake is undoubtedly in California's future. If we knew the date and location, owners could wait until just before the event to buy insurance. Unfortunately, we don't know when and where it will occur--only that it will. That means delaying the purchase of insurance is a roll of the dice. Many who are now avoiding the cost of earthquake insurance will suffer the enormous cost of rebuilding and be burdened with crushing special assessments. Many will have no choice but to walk away from their units.

Into the Cloud. I don't care for gambling, which is why I have earthquake insurance on my home. When it comes to protecting the firm, my partners and I decided to move our entire law practice into the cloud--desktops, phones, billing, accounting software, document management, everything. It will allow the firm to withstand a devastating earthquake and continue to service our clients with little or no interruption. We will complete the transition later this year. 

Adrian J. Adams, Esq.

Boards can contact us for friendly, professional advice.

Adrian J. Adams, Esq.
Founder & Managing Partner

Manager Reverses Board Decisions

Apr 28, 2019 0 Views 0 Comments

QUESTION: Can a management company not comply with a vote from the board? Can they arbitrarily reverse over a thousand dollars in late fees levied against a board member and justify it by stating they do it for board members?

ANSWER: Regarding your first question, managers (whether an employee of the association or employee of a management company) are agents of the association who take their direction from the board of directors. However, they should never be mindless robots. They can and should evaluate instructions given to them. Sometimes they need to push back when boards give improper instructions. If a board directs a manager to take actions which are not legal, I hope the manager would refuse and tactfully tell directors why.

If, however, instructions are legal and reasonable, the manager is obligated to carry them out. If he/she does not, the board can terminate the agent's services and retain someone else to carry them out.

Late Fees. When it comes to reversing late fees and fines, i
t's the board's decision to waive them, not the manager's. If a manager, without board authority, reverses late fees, you have a problem--especially when it's a board member receiving preferential treatment. Boards and their managing agents are supposed to act evenhandedly in their enforcement of rules and the collection of delinquent assessments, fees and fines.

RECOMMENDATION: The board should not act precipitously if a managing agent refuses to carry out instructions--the manager might be justified. Directors should find out why the manager balked. If the refusal was justified, the board may need to reverse direction. If the refusal was unjustified, it may be time to find a new manager. If so, boards should involve legal counsel whenever terminating an employee or a management contract. You want to make sure you follow proper procedures so you don't create potential liability for the association.


QUESTION: Our board president wants to designate a portion of our common area as a fenced enclosure for dogs to be off leash. Can the board authorize this change or does it require an owner referendum or CC&R amendment?

ANSWER: The board is in charge of managing the common areas for the benefit of the membership. Dog parks are popular because they provide a open space for dogs to run and play and do their duty without impacting non-pet owners. I've noticed that dog parks are now included by some developers in planned developments.

Give Notice. The board should notify the membership of its plans and invite everyone to a board or town hall meeting to get their input. Members often provide good feedback on such things. If the board's plans are unreasonable, directors will likely receive stiff opposition from impacted members.

Decision Maker. The board could put the decision before the membership. The downside is getting members to vote. Unfortunately, apathy has a way of killing things. In my opinion, the board can make a decision on its own to fence off an area of reasonable size and location to create a dog park. If the park does not get used or creates a nuisance, the decision can be reversed.

Capital Improvement Cost. All of this assumes funds are available to install a fence. Installing a dog park is a capital improvement since it creates an amenity that did not previously exist. Most governing documents require membership approval for any capital improvement exceeding 5% of the budget. Also, if a special assessment is required, boards have a 5% limit. Anything beyond that requires membership approval.


QUESTION: The Civil Code says a board can establish a reasonable time limit to address the board in a meeting. When setting the limit, does the board need to create an agenda item and vote? Our board recently instituted a 3-minute rule and said it was a policy and not a rule, therefore no board action was required. I say they need to handle it like any other board action, agenda item and vote.

ANSWER: The Davis-Stirling Act states, "A reasonable time limit for all members of the association to speak to the board or before a meeting of the association shall be established by the board." (Civ. Code §4925.) For most associations the three-minute limit is a policy, not a rule. The difference has to due with penalties.

Fines. If the board fines members who violate the speaking limit, then the board adopted a rule not a policy. If so, the proposed rule must first be distributed to the membership for a 28-day review. (Civ. Code §4360(a).) The rule is then adopted by the board in a meeting and recorded in the minutes. If there are no fines attached to the limit, the speaking limit is a policy.

Informal & Fluid. It is not uncommon for the
president to adjust time limits from meeting to meeting. If only a few people attend and the board wants a robust discussion on a particular topic, the president can allow members to speak for more than three minutes. If the meeting has a large attendance and everyone wants to speak, the president might limit speakers to two minutes so as to allow as many people as possible to speak.

Reasonable Limits. Time limits set by the board must be reasonable. A 15-second limit is not sufficient for a person to say anything meaningful. A 10-minute limit means the business portion of the meeting might never start. Three minutes per person is fairly standard for associations.

Publishing Guidelines. Guidelines should include a time limit for the open forum itself. Thirty minutes in large associations is common. This sets an upper limit. Obviously, the open forum portion of the meeting will end sooner if only a few people address the board. Additional guidelines should include things such as (i) speakers may not give their time to other people, (ii) no audio or video recording by attendees, (iii) no rude or threatening comments, and (iv) check all weapons with the manager.

Boards should adopt meeting guidelines and print them on each open meeting agenda. This gives attendees notice on how open forums will be conducted.

Vote No #1. [Regarding SB 323] I sent the email to the list of politicians and certainly hope it makes a difference! Thank you for your newsletter. -Doug S., Glenda C., Tom T., Gary M., Ken M.

Vote No #2. Wouldn't the undesirables have to be elected by the members? I doubt if members when given the facts, would elect undesirable people. I think this is a pure waste of time, or someone has an agenda. -Joe N.

RESPONSE: Senator Wieckowski's and the Center for California Homeowner Association Law's (CCHAL) campaign against community associations is baffling. Why change the law to force associations to allow felons, sex offenders, delinquents and litigants on their boards? Plus, they increased the potential for identity theft in HOA elections.

You ask how "undesireables" can get elected? There are two ways it can happen. The first is if not enough people run for the board. That means those who are nominated automatically get elected. The second way is also common--ignorance. If the membership is unaware of a nominee's background, they vote for the person with the best bio or campaign flyer. That means someone has to alert the membership that a particular candidate refuses to pay a special assessment, ignores the rules, has been convicted of violent crimes, etc.

If no one is willing to tell the membership (due to apathy or fear), enough people could vote for the person to get him/her elected. With cumulative voting, fringe candidates can always get themselves elected. Once on the board, cumulative voting makes it almost impossible to get them off, which is why I encourage associations to amend their bylaws to eliminate cumulative voting.

Those of you who support the flawed CCHAL/Wieckowski bill need to rethink your position.

Vote No #3. First, I love your letters and your humor. I see there is another bill (670) coming down the pike by a wizard named Friedman. Now I think there are two great opportunities here since both bills 670 and bill 323 destroy the spirit and intent of the community housing programs and the benefits they provide. But what the hey, lets support both bills PROVIDING they contain riders--term limits for all elected officials, pay limits (with increases subject to voter approval), no retirement package, and all health benefits cease when they retire. -Jim K.

RESPONSE: AB 670 deals with Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) otherwise known as "granny flats." The bill voids restrictions in CC&Rs that prohibit ADUs. It allows owners to convert their garages into living units or build a second unit on their lot up to 1,200 square feet in size. It's a signature issue of Governor Gavin Newsom to create affordable housing in the state and is receiving a lot of support. The bill is opposed by CAI's California Legislative Action Committee (CLAC) because of the negative impact it would have on community associations. I keep a summary of bills and cases by year on our website. The ones for 2019 can be found here.


Painting Fences #1. I wanted to let you know that associations can insure their volunteer exposure by purchasing a workers comp policy from CAIS. We offer a national workers comp program in all 46 competitive states that extends coverage to board members and volunteers working on behalf of the association. All retail insurance agents can access this program through our website. Premium range from $364 in California -Gary Deck, Community Association Insurance Solutions, LLC

Painting Fences #2. One little item, electrical, plumbing--no license, no insurance if there is a fire or damage. -Harold R.

Painting Fences #3. Certainly volunteer safety is #1. However, OSHA/Work Comp risks are not the only considerations regarding volunteers working for HOA. California labor laws rarely see any type of work as volunteer services and are very aggressive in collecting payroll taxes. I’m not aware of an HOA/common interest development exclusion, similar to what municipalities have for ‘clean up days’ etc. -Michael S.

RESPONSE: If owners volunteer their time, they aren't employees and labor laws do not apply. As volunteers, they aren't paid anything so there is nothing to withhold. As long as the association takes reasonable steps to avoid injuries and it carries appropriate insurance, there shouldn't be a problem.

Painting Fences #4. As a contractor with an inclination to teach, I encourage DIY owners on safe projects to at least get a consultation on whatever they want to do. If they can’t find a willing contractor, then take close-up and global pictures of the fence, or even take one of the fence boards to the paint store for advice. Paint salesmen sometimes like to get out in the field to make a sale or just to stretch and see where their product is going. -Michael C.

Painting Fences #5. Our rural association experienced snowstorms this winter that resulted in 6 or 7 trees falling across the road. Neighbors brought out their chainsaws and spent most of a day clearing huge trees and brush.

Trees fell on two cars parked in the easement--one car was totaled and the other damaged. Is the HOA responsible for any of this damage? Would the HOA have been liable if one of us had been injured while clearing the road?

At the time of this writing, there are still branches hanging over the road. What is a reasonable amount of time for the branches to be cleared? I enjoy reading your emails and learn a lot! Thank you! -Suzanne B.

RESPONSE: Normally, each owner's insurance takes care of damage to their car. It's possible the insurance carrier could pay for the damage and then subrogate against the association if it could show (i) the association was responsible for trimming the trees and (ii) the board was on notice that winter snows would cause trees to fall on the cars, and (iii) the board's failure to act led to the damaged cars. However, the cost of hiring lawyers to litigate the matter makes it unlikely.

If the association organized homeowners to remove the trees and one was injured, it's possible the person could file a claim against the association, thus the need for worker's comp insurance for volunteers. If, however, homeowners jumped into action on their own, it is unlikely an injured volunteer could hold the association responsible for their injuries.

For the remaining branches over the road, any immediate danger of additional damage likely ended with the passing of winter. Even so, if the association is responsible for keeping the trees trimmed, the board should take action to eliminate any foreseeable danger. Another consideration is potential fire hazards. In light of last year's devastating wild fires, it's possible brush needs to be cleared and some trees need to be eliminated.


When is a Condo a PUD? Thank you once again for the very informative newsletters and excellent website. The questions regarding what would seem to be townhomes, patio homes, or single family homes constructed under approved condominium plans is interesting. There are quite a few of these in Santa Cruz County, often consisting of 3 or 4 units on lots that would not allow for subdivision into typical single family home lots. I own one unit in a four-unit development. When one of the units was put on the market, I attempted to correct a few things that had been changed from the original plan: fencing, parking etc. One interesting document I located was Attorney General Opinion No 02-407 on the issue of when is a condo a planned development? Apparently Bill Locklear, AG at the time, went with, "If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck it is a duck" reasoning backed up with a good argument and case law. -Dan M.

RESPONSE: Thank you for alerting me to the AG's Opinion. I had not previously seen it. It's fascinating--a condominium project classified as a planned development. It makes interesting reading for lawyers. Another wrinkle in the world of common interest developments.


Insurance #1. This is in response to the homeowner who did not have the option to buy earthquake insurance. Our association recently purchased earthquake insurance for our common areas at a low purchase price, which has allowed our homeowners to add on to this policy by purchasing coverage for their own units. This allows individual homeowners to opt in or opt out. This was perfect for our association where half our homeowners wanted earthquake insurance and half did not. Love the newsletter! -Suzanne S.

Insurance #2. I am the treasurer of our 28-unit condo association. I have been trying to negotiate lower insurance premiums. I am not interested in changing the deductibles but 70% of policy has items that do not apply to us at all. We are being charged for items which we’ll never claim for. The insurance agent says that these are “condo packages” approved by the State of California and therefore not negotiable. If this is true, it’s hard to comprehend.

RESPONSE: I asked Michael Berg of the Berg Insurance Agency (a Farmers' Agency specializing in community associations) to comment. He responded that insurance policies are not written in an a-la-carte format. Insurance carriers present the Department of Insurance with a product and the Department determines its suitability for consumers in California. He said the product comes at an approved base rate but the carrier often has flexibility on pricing. Boards should review the policy's declarations page. If premiums are shown for different coverage lines, costs can be lowered by reducing coverage for that line. If there is no premium listed, the coverage is included in the package.

Adrian J. Adams, Esq.

Boards can contact us for friendly, professional advice.

Adrian J. Adams, Esq.
Founder & Managing Partner