Articles Posted in Litigation

Published on:

*New Case Lawhoa-records-inspection

As part of the ongoing management of a homeowners association (“HOA”), the HOA is obligated to prepare and maintain certain “association records,” most of which must be made available for inspection by the HOA’s members. However, the right to inspect and copy certain association records is not absolute, as some records may be withheld from a member for confidentiality concerns, as well as in situations where the member requesting the records is doing so for an “improper purpose”:

“association records, and any information from them, may not be sold, used for a commercial purpose, or used for any other purpose not reasonably related to a member’s interest as a member.” (Civ. Code § 5230; see also Corp. Code §§ 8330, 8333.)

This “proper purpose” requirement was recently the focus of a challenge brought by a member of a HOA who sought to inspect and copy the HOA’s membership list. In Tract No. 7260 Association, Inc. v. Parker (2017) 2017 Cal. App. LEXIS 265 (“Parker“), the Court of Appeal concluded that the HOA was justified in withholding the membership list despite the member’s offering of a facially valid reason for his request to inspect the membership list. The member was involved in a corporation that the HOA was suing, called “Fix the City.” The member claimed that he sought the membership list “for possible communication with the [HOA’s] members to ascertain whether there had been corporate misdeeds.”

The HOA denied the request, arguing that the member was seeking inspection of the membership list in order to give Fix the City an unfair advantage in the lawsuit between it and the HOA. The trial court considered the facts at issue, and concluded that the member’s request was indeed improper, stating that “a reasonable conclusion is that [the member] is using his membership status to aid Fix the City in defending the [HOA/Fix the City] lawsuit.”

This aspect of the trial court’s ruling was affirmed on appeal. The Court in Parker noted that, while the HOA has the burden of demonstrating that the member will use the record for an improper purpose, and that mere speculation of an improper purpose is insufficient to justify withholding records, the HOA provided sufficient evidence that the requesting member did indeed seek the information for an improper purpose—namely, to aid Fix the City’s defense in the lawsuit brought against it by the HOA.

California HOA lawyers The Parker case underscores the importance of evaluating a member’s request for association records to determine whether the requested record(s) will be used for an improper purpose (i.e., to advance the member’s interests at the expense of the HOA’s). If the purpose is improper, and that conclusion is supported by more than simple conjecture, the HOA may lawfully deny the request. HOA Boards and managing agents that are concerned about the underlying motivations of a member’s request for association records should consult with the HOA’s legal counsel as to what records may (and indeed should) be withheld in order to protect the HOA.

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

Published on:

*New Case Lawhoa-boundary-dispute

Rural, equestrian, and large-scale planned developments may include properties with spacious lot sizes bordered by common area lots and open spaces. When property lines are not clearly delineated or easily identified in these communities, there may be instances where a homeowner seeks to expand his property by constructing yard improvements that extend beyond his property line and encroach onto adjacent, HOA-owned common area. If this is not discovered and addressed by the HOA in a timely fashion, there are avenues under California law through which the homeowner may assert that he has obtained an easement over (and in extreme circumstances, actual ownership of) the encroached area. The thought of a homeowner annexing common area for his/her own use is a scary thought, as is the prospect of the HOA failing to prevail in costly litigation that may be needed to reclaim its common area.

Fortunately, the recent holding in Nellie Gail Ranch Owners Association v. McMullin (2016) 4 Cal.App.5th 982 (“McMullin”) helps strengthen a HOA’s ability to defeat a homeowner’s attempt to encroach onto common area and claim it as his own…
Continue reading

Published on:

*New Case Lawhoa-attorney-fees-governing-docs

Civil Code Section 5975(c) serves a vital function for any HOA’s enforcement efforts. Should a HOA be required to file a lawsuit to enforce its governing documents, Section 5975(c) entitles the HOA to recover from the defendant homeowner the HOA’s attorney’s fees, provided that the HOA is the “prevailing party” in the lawsuit. This right for a prevailing party to recover its attorney’s fees in an action to enforce a HOA’s governing documents is also commonly found in the provisions of a HOA’s CC&Rs.

But what is the technical definition of “prevailing party?” The Davis-Stirling Act does not define the term “prevailing party,” nor does it provide any metric for making that determination. As a result, California courts have concluded that the test for determining the prevailing party is a pragmatic one—namely, whether a party can be deemed the prevailing party requires a determination that the party “prevailed on a practical level by achieving its main litigation objective.” This test may be relatively easy to apply in some situations, and not so easy in others. For example, assume that a HOA’s lawsuit seeks to recover a substantial sum in fines for an owner’s violation of the rules, but the HOA is only awarded roughly 10% of that amount. Can the HOA be said to have achieved its main litigation objective, despite the fact that the ruling was arguably more favorable to the owner than it was to the HOA?

This hypothetical was actually litigated in the recent case of Almanor Lakeside Villas Owners Assn. v. Carson (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 761 (“Almanor”).  In Almanor, the defendant homeowners (the Carsons) were sued by the HOA to enforce provisions of the HOA’s CC&Rs relating to short-term rentals. The Carsons disputed the applicability of those provisions to them, as well as the HOA’s attempt to enforce other rules relating to trash storage, common area use, and boat decals, and to ultimately fine the Carsons for their violations of those rules. The trial court ruled that the HOA could enforce its rules and awarded attorney’s fees to the HOA in an amount of roughly $100,000, in addition to $6,620 in fines (approximately 10% of the amount originally imposed by the HOA and sought by it in the lawsuit). The Carsons appealed and lost. The HOA was deemed the prevailing party despite its inability to recover roughly 90% of the unpaid fines it originally pursued in the lawsuit.  The Court in Almanor concluded that the key issue in the lawsuit was the HOA’s authority to enforce the rules and to impose fines for violations, not the amount of the fines themselves. Because the trial court found that some of the fines were enforceable, the Court of Appeal held that the HOA “met its objective” in the lawsuit and was appropriately deemed the prevailing party:

“The fractional damages award does not negate the broader practical effect of the court’s ruling, which on the one hand narrowed the universe of restrictions that [the HOA] could impose on the properties, but on the other hand cemented [the HOA’s] authority to promulgate and enforce rules pursuant to the CC&Rs…Taken together and viewed in relation to the parties’ objectives…we conclude that these outcomes were adequate to support the trial court’s ruling [that the HOA was the prevailing party].” (Almanor, at 775.)

California HOA lawyers This holding provides valuable guidance on the issue of attorney’s fee awards in the context of HOA enforcement actions. Lawsuits to enforce a HOA’s governing documents often involve multiple claims or causes of action that asserted against a problematic homeowner. Even where a trial court is reluctant to grant every remedy sought by the HOA, if the practical effect of the lawsuit is consistent with the HOA’s principal objective (i.e., to make the homeowner comply with the governing documents), the HOA should still be deemed the prevailing party entitled to recover its attorney’s fees and costs incurred in connection with its lawsuit.

Published on:

*New Case Lawhoa-mediation

The Davis-Stirling Act promotes the nonjudicial resolution of disputes between homeowners associations (“HOAs”) and their members in various respects. One example is found contained in Civil Code Sections 5930 et. seq.  which, in sum, require that the disputing parties to endeavor to resolve the dispute through Alternative Dispute Resolution (“ADR”) before a lawsuit is filed. ADR is essentially a form of mediation that uses a neutral third-party mediator (often a retired judge) to assist the parties in securing a mutually acceptable resolution.

Experienced HOA Board members, management professionals, and attorneys understand that ADR is often successful in resolving a dispute before it escalates to costly and protracted litigation. That resolution is typically memorialized in a written settlement agreement negotiated during ADR and executed by the parties. The settlement agreement often governs what actions must be taken by the parties within specified time frames. For example, in an architectural dispute, the settlement agreement may require the homeowner to take corrective measures (i.e., to modify or remove unapproved architectural improvements) within a specified time frame.

However, in some instances, a party to the settlement agreement may subsequently fail to honor its terms. The other party is then placed in a position of having to take legal action to enforce the other party’s compliance with the settlement agreement. The enforcing party may then have concerns regarding its ability to recover its attorney’s fees in taking such action. While the Davis-Stirling Act allows for a prevailing party in an action to enforce a HOA’s governing documents to recover its attorney’s fees, it is unclear whether enforcement of a settlement agreement reached at ADR constitutes such an enforcement action.

Fortunately, the recent case of Rancho Mirage Country Club HOA v. Hazelbaker (2016) 2 Cal. App. 5th 252 (“Hazelbaker”) addressed this exact issue… Continue reading

Published on:

*New Case Lawhoa-attorneys-fees.jpg

Litigation can be a time consuming and costly endeavor. These two factors typically weigh heavily against filing a lawsuit, especially where there is no ability for the party prevailing in the lawsuit to recover its attorney’s fees and costs. By default, the “American Rule” with respect to attorney’s fees awards states that each party must pay for its own attorney’s fees and costs unless otherwise provided by statute or contract. (Code Civ. Pro. § 1021.) Fortunately, in the context of homeowners associations (“HOAs”), Civil Code Section 5975(c) allows for a prevailing party in an action to enforce HOA governing documents to recover its reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. Section 5975 is a component of the Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act (“Act”)–the principal body of Civil Code sections governing California HOAs and common interest developments (“CIDs”).

In the recent case of Tract 19051 Homeowners Association v. Kemp (2015) 2015 Cal.LEXIS 1216 (“Kemp“), the California Supreme Court addressed the question of whether Section 5975(c) allows for a prevailing party to recover its attorney’s fees and costs in a lawsuit brought under the Act even where the HOA in the lawsuit is not a CID and thus technically not subject to the Act…

Continue reading

Published on:

HOA-water-intrusion-patio.jpgMost every set of Homeowners Association (“HOA”) CC&Rs contain a provision prohibiting conduct which constitutes a “nuisance.” That conduct often includes “noxious, illegal or offensive activities,” anything which “unreasonably interferes with a resident’s right to quiet enjoyment” and/or “endangers their health or annoys or disturbs” them. We have blogged about how such nuisance provisions may be employed to resolve issues such as the conduct of tenants, activities in the common area, and second-hand smoke transmission. However, a recent unpublished ruling of a California appeals court indicates how nuisance provisions may also extend to situations involving improvements constructed or maintained by a homeowner.

In PGA West Residential Association, Inc. et al., v. Mork (2014) Cal. Ct. App. No. E054276 (“PGA West“), the Defendant homeowners (the Morks) and the Plaintiff homeowners (the Wyatts) owned adjacent, freestanding condominium units within the PGA West Residential Association (“Association”). In 2008, the Wyatts discovered the presence of mold and moisture damage within the interior of their unit. The Wyatts concluded that the water had entered into their unit through an exterior common area wall (“Common Wall”) separating their unit and the Morks’ patio (“Patio”). The Wyatts then sued both the Morks and the Association for violating the restrictive covenants set forth in the Association’s CC&Rs. The Association also sued the Morks for breach of the CC&Rs, breach of contract, and negligence–alleging that the Morks had altered the drainage in the Patio and, as a result, caused water to flow under the Common Wall and into the Wyatts’ unit.

At trial, both the Wyatts and the Association presented evidence that the Morks had altered the original grade of the Patio in the Morks’ course of constructing a swimming pool, sprinkler system and other improvements in the Patio area. The Morks’ conduct resulted in surface water which drained away from the Morks’ unit ultimately collecting into a 2′ wide planter (“Planter”) that extended the length of the Common Wall. In their defense, the Morks argued, among other things, that they were not responsible under the CC&Rs for maintaining the Patio or the Planter–that those areas were designated as “Limited Common Areas” under the CC&Rs to be maintained by the Association…

Continue reading

Published on:

HOA-IDR-Lawyers.jpg*New Legislation

Provisions of the Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act (Civ. Code §§ 4000 – 6150) currently require homeowners associations (“HOAs”) to “provide a fair, reasonable, and expeditious procedure for resolving a dispute” between a HOA and its members. Civ. Code §§ 5900, 5905. This procedure is commonly referred to as “Meet and Confer” or “Internal Dispute Resolution” (“IDR”). Its purpose is to provide a non-adversarial forum where a HOA member and a HOA Director can meet informally to see if a resolution to the dispute can be secured short of involving attorneys and taking legal action.

However, the passage of AB 1738 (Chau) will upset this non-adversarial and informal structure through providing a member with the right to have the member’s attorney present at the IDR meeting. While this may not seem problematic, HOAs and industry professionals that are familiar with the IDR process understand that AB 1738 will undoubtedly result in HOAs incurring greater attorney’s fees to resolve member disputes. CAI’s California Legislative Action Committee’s (CAI-CLAC) “Call to Action” on AB 1738 illustrated its inherent problems:

“AB 1738 encourages members to bring attorneys and others to their first meeting with a single board member who has volunteered to help work out the member’s problem or concern. These simple ‘meet-and-confer’ conversations over coffee most often resolve an issue. When they occasionally don’t, either party may pursue a more formal Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) process that does involve lawyers. Nothing in law prevents lawyers from attending IDR right now, but AB 1738 actually promotes having them present to argue the issue(s). This will invariably make the discussion adversarial…

…If a member brings an attorney [to IDR], the HOA will very likely bring an attorney. At $300 per hour, each IDR will cost HOAs a minimum of $900 when one considers the lawyer’s time preparing, attending and any follow-up actions. [AB 1378] will end up increasing assessments.”

These sentiments were echoed by the Educational Community for Homeowners (ECHO) in its opposition to AB 1738: “By default, associations will bring their attorneys to IDR. In order to protect themselves, owners will also bring their attorneys. This increases the expenses for both parties, and encourages an adversarial atmosphere.”

IDR is not mediation, but an informal meeting between the member and at least one (1) HOA Director. As such, the communications during the IDR meeting are generally not subject to the confidentiality requirements that cover the more formal “Alternative Dispute Resolution” (“ADR”) process. AB 1738 could allow for the communications and documents discussed at IDR to be admissible in future litigation, and thus serve as a significant problem for the HOA. This is one reason why our office, along with the majority of HOA attorneys, are advising our HOA clients engaged in IDR with a member to close and reschedule the IDR meeting if the member unexpectedly brings their attorney to the IDR meeting. If the member is represented by an attorney, the HOA should ensure that it is as well. Rescheduling the IDR meeting so that the HOA’s attorney can also be present is vital to protecting the HOA’s interests.

Despite overwhelming HOA industry opposition to AB 1738, it was signed into law by Governor Brown on September 18, 2014, and will take effect January 1, 2015. To read the text of AB 1738 and how it will amend the current provisions of Civil Code Sections 5910 and 5915, click here.

hoa laws

AB 1738 represents a tremendous setback for HOAs and their members in their efforts to resolve disputes in a quick and cost-effective manner. Where those efforts fail, the parties are free under current law to move to ADR (a form of mediation) in order to involve attorneys and see if a resolution can be secured short of litigation. As a result of AB 1738, HOA Boards of Directors and management professionals must be cognizant of the problems that could arise if a member’s attorney attends the IDR meeting without the HOA’s attorney also being present. HOAs seeking specific guidance and recommendations on this issue should consult their legal counsel.

Published on:

*New Case Lawhoa-construction-defect-meeting.jpg

Civil Code Section 6150 requires that a homeowners association (“HOA”) make various disclosures to its membership in the context of construction defect litigation. The HOA is further required to hold a meeting of its membership to “discuss problems that may lead to the filing” of a construction defect action, as well as the options available to the members to address those problems.

Such a meeting will likely involve communications between the HOA’s construction defect attorney and individual members of the HOA whom are not the attorney’s direct clients. Therefore, the extent to which those communications are protected by the attorney-client privilege may be uncertain. Fortunately, the recent case of Seahaus La Jolla Owners Association v. La Jolla View LTD addressed this issue and clarified the privileged nature of communications between a HOA’s attorneys and its membership in the context of construction defect litigation…

Continue reading

Published on:

*New Case LawHOA-parking-structure.jpg

It is not uncommon for a homeowners association (“HOA”) to enter into contractual arrangements with a third party where the rights and responsibilities under that arrangement are between the third party and each of the HOA’s members. Under such circumstances, the HOA’s involvement may be limited solely to collecting fees from the members and passing them on to the third party. Because the HOA (as an entity) is not the beneficiary of the contract, there is uncertainty as to whether the HOA has standing to assert claims against the third party on behalf of the HOA’s members. California Civil Code Section 5980 provides a HOA with standing to initiate legal action “in its own name as the real party in interest and without joining with it the [HOA’s] members” in matters relating to enforcement of the HOA’s governing documents, as well as matters involving or arising out of damage to the common area and/or to a separate interest which the HOA is obligated to maintain or repair. However, there is no statutory provision clearly addressing whether a HOA has such standing in matters pertaining to the rights of the HOA’s members in contracts with third parties.

Fortunately, the recent case of Market Lofts Community Association v. 9th Street Market Lofts, LLC (2014) 222 Cal. App. 4th 924 (“Market Lofts”) provides some guidance on this issue.

Continue reading

Published on:

hoa-caregiver.jpgThe ability of California homeowners associations (“HOAs”) to adopt and enforce restrictions on the renting of units has been limited by changes in the law over the past couple of years. Those changes have purported to provide greater protections for homeowners seeking to rent out their units to third parties. HOAs have therefore been required to modify their approach to the enforcement of rent restrictions that may be contained in their governing documents, including the adoption of additional rent restrictions binding only on future homeowners.

However, a recent unpublished Appellate Court decision confirms the ability of a HOA to enforce rent restrictions adopted decades in the past that are intended to address the unique concerns and characteristics of the HOA’s development.

Continue reading