HOA Lawyer Blog

SB-908 Signed! Debt Collection Licensing Act

Published on: October 1, 2020 | by Steven J. Tinnelly, Esq.

*New Legislation

Existing state law provides for the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (the “Rosenthal Act”), California’s state equivalent of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”). Like the FDCPA, the Rosenthal Act prohibits debt collectors from engaging in specified abusive, unfair, or deceptive practices to collect debts. Violations of the Rosenthal Act are enforceable through a private right of action.

Additionally, existing California State law provides for the Fair Debt Buying Practices Act (“FDBPA”; Civil Code Section 1788.50 et seq.), which requires persons that purchase delinquent or charged-off consumer debt to maintain, and provide upon request, specified documentation proving that the alleged debtor is the individual associated with the original contract or agreement, and that the amount of indebtedness is accurate, among other requirements.

On September 25, 2020, Governor Newsom signed Senate Bill 908, the Debt Collection Licensing Act (“SB 908”), which creates a new licensing law applicable to debt collectors and debt buyers, administered by the Department of Business Oversight (“DBO”), effective January 1, 2022. Moreover, SB 908 provides for licensure regulation, oversight of debt collectors, definitions of terms, application requirements (including criminal background checks), maintaining surety bonds, and other related changes.

SB 908, sponsored by Senator Wieckowski, was presented to ensure greater consumer protection through enhanced oversight over debt collectors and debt buying entities within California. The bill utilizes the foundations contained within the Rosenthal Act and FDBPA.

The goal of SB 908 is to add new a layer of regulatory oversight over debt collectors and debt buyers already subject to state law, but not currently subject to licensure. With the adoption of the bill, debt collectors and debt buying entities must apply for and be approved for a license by the Commissioner of Business Oversight. By requiring debt collectors and debt buyers to comply with licensing requirements, the belief is that the State will be better situated to ensure compliance with existing law.

As for remedial measures, the Rosenthal Act and the FDBPA already authorize private rights of action for violations of these acts. As such, SB 908 contains a limited set of administrative remedies, including desist and refrain authority, the ability to order ancillary relief, and the ability to suspend and revoke licenses. According to the Senate, the lack of civil and administrative penalty authority and citation and fine authority in SB 908 is intended to prevent situations where a licensee could be subject to both a lawsuit by a debtor and to an administrative or civil action brought by DBO for the same violation.

The adoption of SB 908 has several important implications for Homeowners Associations (“HOA”). Notably, the new licensing requirement applies to natural persons, partnerships, corporations, limited liability companies, trusts, estates, cooperatives, associations, and other similar entities. This includes law firms and management companies involved in the collection of debt, including the collection of delinquent assessments. Thus, this bill directly impacts which entities may manage the HOA’s assessment collections.

Considering the foregoing, and to avoid the various penalties provided for in SB 908 (i.e. refunds, restitution, disgorgement, and payment of damages, as appropriate, on behalf of a person injured by the improper conduct) all HOAs should ensure that their designated collection vendors are properly licensed by the DBO by January 1, 2022.

-Blog post authored by TLG Attorney, Corey L. Todd, Esq.

New Client: Theory at Innovation Homeowners Association

Published on: September 30, 2020 | by Steven J. Tinnelly, Esq.

Theory-300x169 It’s our privilege to welcome Theory at Innovation Homeowners Association to Tinnelly Law Group’s growing family of HOA clients.

Theory is a collection of 4 new single-level home plans by Shea Homes®, located within the stunning new master plan of Innovation in Fremont. As it grows, it’s planned to include shopping, dining, recreation, and education—including a cutting-edge elementary school—all within walking distance. The amenity-rich clubhouse, The Commons, includes a fitness center, swimming pool, and inviting outdoor gathering spaces.

Our HOA lawyers and staff look forward to working with Theory’s Board and management.

California Legislature Further Limits a HOA’s Right to Restrict Rentals

Published on: September 28, 2020 | by Steven J. Tinnelly, Esq.

*New Legislation

On January 1, 2012, Section 1360.2 (now Section 4740) was added to the California Civil Code to limit a HOA’s authority to adopt and enforce certain rental “prohibitions.” The legislative intent behind the law was the recognition that “the rights of Owners in [a HOA] to rent or lease their properties, as the rights existed at the time the Owners acquired them, should be protected by the State of California…” Nevertheless, by its own terms, Section 4740 applies to rental prohibitions, not necessarily less serious restrictions that are reasonably related to the Association’s interests in maintaining and preserving the community. Thus, many HOAs adopted restrictions regulating the rental of separate interests within the development (e.g., one-year minimum term limit, owner-occupancy requirements, individual room rental restrictions, etc.).

On September 28, 2020, Governor Gavin Newsom signed Assembly Bill 3182 (“AB 3182”), which was introduced as another measure “to address the housing and homelessness crisis” in California. According to Assembly Member Phil Ting (the author of AB 3182), “[t]here are millions of homes across the state that have the potential to be rented to Californians in need of housing but that are prohibited from being leased under outdated [HOA] rules.” While the stated objective of providing more affordable housing units is a laudable goal, AB 3182 significantly limits the extent to which HOAs may impose rental restrictions and prohibitions.

Under AB 3182, California Civil Code section 4741 is added to the Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act and renders void and unenforceable any provision in a governing document or amendment thereto “that prohibits, has the effect of prohibiting, or unreasonably restricts the rental or leasing of” a separate interest “to a renter, lessee, or tenant.” Despite this prohibition, Section 4741 does authorize a HOA to adopt and enforce:

A rental cap of twenty-five percent (25%) of the separate interests (or greater); and
A provision “that prohibits transient or short-term rental of a separate…interest for a period of 30 days or less.”

Moreover, Section 4741 adds that a separate interest (including Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units) is not considered “occupied by a renter” if the separate interest is also owner-occupied. Thus, for example, a cap on the number of rentals within a HOA would not apply to an owner renting out individual rooms within his or her separate interest.

Other than the rental restrictions specifically identified in Section 4741, there is much uncertainty as to the extent to which other common rental restrictions would be rendered unenforceable as a result of AB 3182. Indeed, the Legislature provides no guidance as to what would constitute an “unreasonable restriction” on the rental of a separate interest. Therefore, each rental restriction contained in a HOA’s governing documents must be evaluated in light of AB 3182’s intent: to increase the number of housing units made available.

There is much uncertainty that remains concerning the extent to which other typical rental restrictions remain valid and enforceable. To the extent certain rental restrictions are rendered unenforceable by AB 3182, same must be removed from the governing documents no later than December 31, 2021. Failure to comply with Section 4741 may result in a HOA being liable for actual damages (e.g., lost rental income) and a civil penalty of up to one thousand dollars ($1,000). It is therefore important for each HOA to consult with their attorney to determine whether the HOA’s rental restrictions are enforceable in light of AB 3182, and to take action to amend their governing documents to remove such unenforceable provisions.

-Blog post authored by TLG Attorney, Matthew T. Plaxton, Esq.

New Client: The Whelan Ranch Condominium Community Association

Published on: September 24, 2020 | by Steven J. Tinnelly, Esq.

Whelan-Ranch-300x169 It’s our privilege to welcome The Whelan Ranch Condominium Community Association to Tinnelly Law Group’s growing family of HOA clients.

Whelan Ranch is condo community located near Camp Pendleton and the Oceanside Golf Course in Oceanside. Residents enjoy a pool, clubhouse, two playgrounds, parklike views, hiking trails, and a quiet neighborhood.

Our HOA lawyers and staff look forward to working with Whelan Ranch’s Board and management.

Political Signs and the Limits Imposed on a HOA’s Ability to Regulate Same

Published on: September 23, 2020 | by Steven J. Tinnelly, Esq.

bigstock_Yard_Signs_At_Residential_Stre_229727968 As we draw near to the 2020 election, many residents living in HOAs have decided to install yard signs and other displays for their chosen candidate or cause. Many of these “noncommercial” signs have sparked fury in those who oppose such views, calling upon the Board of Directors to have such signs removed. Thus, in recent months, we have received numerous requests from our clients to provide an opinion as to the extent to which a HOA may regulate the display of such non-commercial signs.

It is without doubt that we currently live in a society with varying opinions on political and social issues. Such division has only become more polarized with recent events. While some might find the opinions espoused by certain groups repugnant, upholding a resident’s right to express those beliefs and opinions through the display of signs on their property is more important than the minor discomfort some may experience in observing such signs. The only other option would be to prohibit residents from displaying any signs concerning issues of politics and social justice, something which the California Legislature has expressly forbidden: “[H]omeowners throughout the state shall be able to engage in constitutionally protected free speech traditionally associated with private residential property” and “shall be specifically protected from unreasonable restrictions on this right in the governing documents.” (Historical and Statutory Notes, 8 West’s Ann. Civ. Code (2007 ed.) foll. 1353.6, p. 184.)

Indeed, under California Civil Code section 4710(a), “[t]he governing documents may not prohibit posting or displaying of noncommercial signs, posters, flags or banners on or in a member’s separate interest, except as required for the protection of public health or safety or if the posting or display would violate a local, state, or federal law.” Some may nevertheless argue that certain noncommercial signs incite terror and/or rioting and therefore must be removed “for the protection of public health [and] safety.” Although such argument is speculative at best, Section 4710’s concern with public health and safety relates to concerns relative to the placement of such signs (e.g., view obstructions), not the fact that some might have an adverse emotional or physical reaction to such signs.

Inquiries have also been made concerning a HOA’s ability to restrict the number of noncommercial signs placed on a resident’s separate interest, as well as the duration of their display. Section 4710 does not address the number of noncommercial signs that may be displayed by a particular resident. However, in Fourth La Costa Condominium Owners Association v. Seith, the Court saw “no problem with allowing only one sign per unit,” and requiring that they be removed after a particular duration. ((2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 563, 581.) While Fourth La Costa pertained to real estate signs (i.e., commercial signs), the Court’s reasoning could similarly apply to restrictions on the number of noncommercial signs as well as the duration of display. (See id. at p. 581 (upholding the HOA’s decision “for aesthetic purposes”).) A HOA’s ability to regulate the number and duration would be further supported if the city/county in which the HOA is located has also promulgated codes/ordinances regulating the installation of political signs on a resident’s separate interest.

Again, it is important to recognize that many residents might find some of the political and social views promoted by their neighbors as offensive. Because they live in a HOA, they must necessarily tolerate differing viewpoints and loyalties. As the California Supreme Court has said, “[t]he very existence of organized society depends upon the principle of ‘give and take, live and let live’….” (San Diego Gas & Electric Co. v. Superior Court. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 893, 937-38.) Therefore, in response to resident complaints, such residents should be informed of the limitation imposed by Section 4710 and directed to “avoid further bombardment of their sensibilities simply by averting their eyes.” (Cohen v. California (1971) 403 U.S. 15, 21.)

Residents who object to the content displayed on noncommercial signs should be reminded that HOAs are limited in the ways in which they may restrict residents from displaying such signs on their separate interests. Nevertheless, HOAs should consult with their general counsel to ensure that the HOA’s operating rules are in compliance with California Civil Code section 4710.

-Blog post authored by TLG Attorney, Matthew T. Plaxton, Esq.

Insurance Coverage Denied & Bad Faith Claims

Published on: September 16, 2020 | by Steven J. Tinnelly, Esq.

Medical-Necessity-Criteria-1080x675-1 Community associations buy insurance to obtain coverage in the case it becomes necessary. The reality is pre-litigation costs are expensive, ranging anywhere from a few thousand to tens of thousands of dollars. Litigation itself can be even more and this is not including any estimated fees for an appeal. No association wants to pay out of pocket for all these fees when there is a perfectly good insurance policy bought just for these types of situations. However, sometimes, an insurance company will want to cut corners to avoid paying out its policy coverage amount. If an association’s insurance carrier(s) denies coverage, your association’s legal counsel will work together with the insurance adjuster to persuade the insurance carrier to provide coverage, as a bad faith insurance claim would not be beneficial to either parties.

What is a bad faith insurance claim?

The law implies a covenant of good faith and fair dealing in every contract, including insurance policies. (Wilson v. 21st Century Ins. Co. (2007) 42 Cal. 4th 713, 720). “[T]he essence of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing is that [t]he insurer must refrain from doing anything that will injure the right of the insured to receive the benefits of the [insurance] agreement, the terms and conditions of which define the duties and performance to which the insured is entitled.” (Brandwein v. Butler (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 1485, 1514- 1515.) Therefore, breach of a specific provision of the insurance contract is not a necessary prerequisite to bringing a bad faith claim. (Carson v. Mercury Ins. Co. (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 409, 429.)

The implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing is breached where an insurer delays or denies payment of policy benefits unreasonably (i.e., without any reasonable basis for its position) or without proper cause. (Jordan v. Allstate Ins. Co. (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 1062, 1072-1073; see Wilson, supra, 42 Cal. 4th 713, 723, —“[A]n insurer’s denial of or delay in paying benefits gives rise to tort damages only if the insured shows the denial or delay was unreasonable”; see also Chateau Chamberay Homeowners Ass’n v. Associated Int’l Ins. Co. (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 335, 346.)

“[F]or a variety of [public] policy reasons, courts have held that breach of the implied covenant (in insurance cases) will provide the basis for an action in tort.” (Foley v. Interactive Data Corp (1988) 47 Cal. 3d 654, 684, 765 P.2d 373.) Insurance companies know that people buy insurance to obtain peace of mind and security, and that they expect to be paid promptly in the event of loss. (Egan v. Mut. of Omaha Ins. Co. (1979) 24 Cal. 3d 809, 819, 620 P.2d 141, 145.) Having sold insurance on this basis, insurers are not permitted to put their interest (in avoiding claims losses) ahead of the insureds’ interests in obtaining the protection for which they bargained. (Id. at p. 819.

If the association timely notifies the insurance carrier upon learning of a potential claim that may be covered by their insurance policy, insurance companies must cooperate in the investigation or settlement of the claim or defense against the lawsuit among other things.

-Blog post authored by TLG Attorney, Vivian X. Tran, Esq.

New Client: Menifee Hills Community Association

Published on: September 9, 2020 | by Steven J. Tinnelly, Esq.

Menifee-Hills-300x169 It’s our privilege to welcome Menifee Hills Community Association to Tinnelly Law Group’s growing family of HOA clients.

Located in the Temecula Valley, Menifee Hills is a Lennar product featuring two collections of homes offering spacious designs and mountain views. Amenities include parks and trails throughout the community. Residents can also enjoy boating and fishing at Diamond Valley Lake. The association is close to the California Citrus Heritage State Park and the renowned wine tasting region in Temecula Valley.

Our HOA lawyers and staff look forward to working with Menifee Hills’ Board and management.

New Client: Chelsea Park Owners Association

Published on: September 2, 2020 | by Steven J. Tinnelly, Esq.

Chelsea-Park-300x169 It’s our privilege to welcome Chelsea Park Owners Association to Tinnelly Law Group’s growing family of HOA clients.

Chelsea Park is located in the heart of Mission Dolores District of San Francisco. Residents enjoy a short walk to the Castro, Valencia Corridor, Dolores Park, award-winning restaurants and all neighborhood conveniences.

Our HOA lawyers and staff look forward to working with Chelsea Park’s Board and management.

Planning for the Unexpected: Force Majeure

Published on: August 26, 2020 | by Steven J. Tinnelly, Esq.

Expect-the-Unexpected If 2020 has taught us anything, it is to expect the unexpected. California community associations base their successful and continuing operations on careful planning and budgeting, but Associations must also plan for the unexpected. To that end, association vendor contracts should be drafted to ensure they afford adequate protections for when peril strikes.

Community associations regularly contract with vendors for a variety of services including landscaping and the maintenance and repair of common area components. Vendor contracts are often woefully sparse and fail to contain language to provide the parties with a mechanism to deal with unexpected disasters like war, fire, terrorist acts, or even pandemics like COVID-19.

Force majeure is a Latin phrase that means “superior force.” A force majeure contractual clause defines a set of events or circumstances beyond the contracting parties’ control that may excuse or delay parties’ contractual obligations for performance because performance would either be too difficult, impossible, or impracticable. Without it, the parties are bound to perform even in the face of a deadly viral pandemic which has resulted in shelter-in-place orders and business shutdowns across the state.

Citing Witkin Summary of Law, California courts have specifically held that “force majeure is the equivalent of the common law contract defense of impossibility and/or frustration of purpose: performance of a contract is excused when an (1) unforeseeable event, (2) outside of the parties’ control, (3) renders performance impossible or impractical.” Citizens of Humanity, LLC v. Caitac Int’l, Inc., No. B215233, 2010 WL 3007771 (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 2, 2010). (emphasis added). In the realm of community association vendor contracts, COVID-19 has made the performance of certain contractual obligations impossible or impracticable. A large non-emergency construction project like a balcony repair which requires access by strangers to the inside of owners’ units comes to mind.

Very few vendor contracts which have not been prepared or negotiated by an attorney contain force majeure clauses. While it is always advisable for Associations to have vendor contracts reviewed by counsel, COVID-19 is an additional reason to seek the advice of counsel before signing a vendor contract. Given that a pandemic and shutdown of this magnitude is, forever more, a foreseeable event, its description should be included in all force majeure contractual provisions moving forward, so as to erase any doubt as to what events constitute the triggering of a force majeure event.

Not all force majeure clauses are created equal. Boilerplate language has been held insufficient in California and other states—a good example being Watson Labs, Inc. v. Rhone-Poulenc Rorer, Inc., 178 F.Supp.2d 1099, 1111 (C.D. Cal. 2001), where language referring to “regulatory, governmental … action” was found to be too vague and boilerplate to reflect that the parties considered that the shutdown of the Defendant’s plant would be encompassed.

Accordingly, an approach of over-inclusiveness should be adopted in drafting force majeure clauses. This ensures that not just a pandemic, but the effects of a pandemic, such as shelter-in-place orders, quarantines, government shutdowns, and other economic ripples caused by the response to an epidemic or pandemic be included in the definition of a force majeure event.

Associations should have all contracts reviewed by counsel and vendor contracts should contain a well-drafted force majeure clause to afford associations protection from liability in the event a pandemic or other force majeure event requires the delay or termination of a contract.

-Blog post authored by TLG Attorney, Carrie N. Heieck, Esq.

Your County is Off the COVID-19 Monitoring List…But Don’t Open the HOA Gym Just Yet!

Published on: August 19, 2020 | by Steven J. Tinnelly, Esq.

California homeowners associations started reopening community gyms when the State of California began easing restrictions imposed by the initial COVID-19 stay-home orders from March 2020 according to stages of a reopening roadmap. Thereafter, COVID-19 cases across the state began to spike, causing the state to issue renewed restrictions as set forth in the July 13, 2020 Statewide Public Health Officer Order (“Order”). These renewed restrictions forced HOAs in counties on the Monitoring List, including Orange, San Diego, Placer & Santa Cruz counties, to close previously-reopened gyms and fitness centers unless they could safely operate outdoors.

Due to reduced cases and otherwise meeting the requirements for slowing the spread of COVID-19, Orange, San Diego, Placer and Santa Cruz counties were recently removed from the state’s Monitoring List. However, the removal does not mean that community gyms and fitness centers may reopen at this time. This is because Section 3 of the Order provides that counties placed on the Monitoring List must close indoor gym and fitness center operations, but does not provide for the reopening of those indoor operations once a county is removed from the Monitoring List. For that to happen, the state must modify the Order and authorize the re-opening of indoor fitness facilities. Applicable county orders must also be similarly updated.

For now, the state’s COVID-19 website clearly states, “[c]ounties on, or recently removed from, the County Monitoring List must close indoor operations for the following business sectors, events, and activities . . . Gyms and fitness centers . . .” This means that outdoor fitness facilities are the only option for HOAs in counties on or recently removed from the Monitoring List. However, caution should be exercised (no pun intended) before moving community gyms outside as the equipment could easily be stolen, damaged due to exposure from the elements, cause costly damage to the HOA common area while being moved, or injure workers or volunteers whom are not otherwise qualified to move heavy equipment. Moreover, gym equipment left outside and unattended could increase the HOA’s liability exposure due to, for example, those improperly using it for play or climbing.

While this state of events may be disappointing for homeowners, continued reduction of COVID-19 cases across the state should encourage state officials to reopen indoor fitness facilities when reopening can be accomplished safely. Homeowners associations are encouraged to consult with their legal counsel before reopening their fitness facilities to ensure compliance with all applicable laws.

-Blog post authored by TLG Attorney, Carrie N. Heieck, Esq.

HOA Lawyer BLog