There is no substitute for expertise. HOA law is what we do.

Articles Posted in Boards of Directors

New ‘Community Association Update Newsletter’ – Issue 57

Published on: March 3, 2023 | by Steven J. Tinnelly, Esq.

Newsletter-Issue-57-300x167 In case you missed it, Issue # 57 of our ‘Community Association Update’ newsletter is available now!

Topics covered in this issue include:

AB 1410 – Speech on Social Media; Room Rentals; Enforcement During Emergencies
AB 1738 – EV Charging Stations in Existing Multi-Family Developments
SB 897 – Accessory Dwelling Units
Artus v. Gramercy Towers
Fowler v. Golden Pacific Bancorp, Inc.

A link to the newsletter is here.

Need to be added to our mailing list? Click here to sign up. Links to previous editions of our newsletter can be found here.

The Benefits of Board Education

Published on: December 28, 2022 | by Steven J. Tinnelly, Esq.

bigstock-Businesswoman-Raising-Hand-Up-230281444-scaled-1-e1668125240647 In the State of California, most HOA’s are non-profit corporations managed by a board of directors composed of volunteer homeowners elected by the membership. Boards derive their authority from the governing documents including the Articles of Incorporation, Bylaws, and Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) that impose rules and restrictions on the use of property within the development. The board of directors, acting on behalf of the HOA, is responsible for the maintenance of the common areas of the property, enforcing the governing documents, and collecting assessments. While most boards delegate duties to management companies and rely on experts such as attorneys and CPA’s to aid in decision-making, the board is ultimately responsible for decisions and actions taken by the HOA.

HOA board members are not compensated for their services and are typically not experts or even very familiar with the strict requirements for HOA management. While new directors typically run with an altruistic motive to help their communities and “get things done,” it is important that they understand the structure of a community association, the association’s authority over the development and its owners, and the unique way an association is governed. Board education is a great way to familiarize new members with an overview of their duties and responsibilities and to provide a refresher for existing Board members so that the HOA runs smoothly, efficiently, and with minimal exposure to liability. Board education can also help protect directors for incurring personal liability for decisions made in the scope of their duties.

Board education is offered by management companies, law firms, CAI chapters, and others with expertise and knowledge in HOA governance. There is no one-size-fits-all educational program as the issues faced by HOA’s are often unique to each association. Some general topics for Board education include but are not limited to:

General Duties and Responsibilities of Directors
Laws Applicable to Common Interest Developments
Types and Hierarchy of Governing Documents
Business Judgment Rule
Conducting Meetings
Enforcement and Disciplinary Matters
Financial Responsibilities
Maintenance Responsibilities
Assessments & Collection
Director Conduct
Contracts

An educated board oftentimes results in a better-functioning HOA with less legal fees, less special assessments, less contentiousness, and higher property values. Board members who are willing to put personal differences and agendas aside, are open to considering expert advice and differing viewpoints, and who work collaboratively with other directors and in the best interests of the Association as a whole, are the directors who best serve their communities. While directors will always be subject to criticism since it is impossible to please everyone, with proper education, those directors’ actions will better withstand such scrutiny.

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

Combatting Unlawful Harassment with Restraining Orders

Published on: June 1, 2022 | by Steven J. Tinnelly, Esq.

Man-yelling-at-women-300x200-1 Board Members are tasked with the difficult job of enforcing the Association’s rules and regulations against non-compliant Members. Unfortunately, this often creates tension between Board Members and Members. In some circumstances, this tension turns into unlawful harassment. When this occurs, Board Members should consider the available legal remedies provided under both California law and their homeowners association’s governing documents in order to protect themselves and abate the harassing conduct.

Generally speaking, a restraining order will provide Board Members with the most immediate relief and protection. This is because the California Code of Civil Procedure requires judges to review and rule on requests for Temporary Restraining Orders within the next business day of filing for the same. (Cal. Code Civ. Proc., § 527.6(e).) (Although, Temporary Restraining Orders only remain in effect for a period not to exceed twenty-one [21] days. Before issuing Permanent Restraining Orders, courts must first allow the parties to present their sides of the story at hearings.)

There are two types of restraining orders that Board Members may consider depending on the nature of the alleged harassing conduct. The most common type of restraining order is a Civil Harassment Restraining Order. To prevail and receive a Civil Harassment Restraining Order, the Board Member must prove that the alleged harasser engaged in one of the following forms of unlawful harassment:

unlawful violence (i.e., assault, battery or stalking as defined by the California Penal Code);
a credible threat of violence (i.e., a statement or course of conduct that places a reasonable person in fear for their safety or the safety of their immediate family, and that serves no legitimate purpose); or
a course of conduct directed at the Board Member that seriously alarms, annoys, or harasses the Board Member and causes the Board Member to suffer from substantial emotional distress (and would also cause a reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress), and that serves no legitimate purpose.

On the other hand, homeowners associations (as corporations) may consider filing Workplace Violence Restraining Orders against the alleged harasser on behalf of its Board Members. According to the California Code of Civil Procedure, Board Members are considered “employees” of homeowners associations for the limited purpose of Workplace Violence Restraining Orders. (Cal. Code Civ. Proc., §527.8(b)(3).) To prevail and receive a Workplace Violence Restraining Order, the homeowners association must prove that the Board Members (or any other employee as defined by the Code of Civil Procedure) suffered:

unlawful violence (i.e., assault, battery or stalking as defined by the California Penal Code); or
a credible threat of violence (i.e., a statement or course of conduct that places a reasonable person in fear for their safety or the safety of their immediate family), that can reasonably be construed to be carried out or to have been carried out at the workplace, and that serves no legitimate purpose.

If after a hearing on the merits, the Court finds that unlawful harassment has taken place, then the judge may issue a Permanent Civil Harassment Restraining Order for up to five (5) years or a Workplace Violence Restraining Order for up to three (3) years. However, the Code of Civil Procedure only permits Courts to award the prevailing party its attorneys’ fees and costs in lawsuits for Civil Harassment Restraining Orders, not Workplace Violence Restraining Orders.

Finally, in some circumstances, a Member’s harassing conduct toward the Board may constitute a nuisance, as defined by the homeowners association’s CC&Rs. In those situations, the homeowners association may consider bringing an unlimited civil action lawsuit against the offending Member to enforce the homeowners association’s governing documents. Board Members should keep in mind that this type of civil litigation is often more costly and the potential relief is not usually as immediate. Furthermore, the alleged harassment must satisfy the definition of a “nuisance,” as set forth in the governing documents.

If Board Members believe that they are being harassed as a result of their service on the Board of Directors, they should consult with the Association’s general counsel to determine the most effective way to address the problem. Each situation must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis to determine whether the facts meet the legal definition of “unlawful harassment” or a “nuisance.” Of course, Board Members should immediately contact their local law enforcement agencies if they believe that their safety and wellbeing is at risk.

-Blog post authored by TLG Attorney, Sarah A. Kyriakedes, Esq.

How to Handle Potential Conflicts of Interest

Published on: March 9, 2022 | by Steven J. Tinnelly, Esq.

download Conflicts of interest present possible liabilities that homeowners associations (“HOAs”) should do their utmost to avoid. There are issues that need to be deliberated and decided upon by the Board of Directors; however, in some situations, not all Directors should take part in the decision-making. A common scenario includes a situation where the Director might have a material financial interest in the outcome; or, the Director is violating the governing documents and should not decide on their own disciplinary consequences. Therefore, to keep all lines of communication and responsibilities clear, the Board should watch out for potential conflicts of interest and take the necessary steps to insulate the HOA and the Director from actual conflicts of interest. Some further examples of both potential and actual conflicts of interest could include:

Property damage to common areas abutting a Director’s property.
HOA litigation matters that could directly implicate a Director.
Capital improvements to common areas that would be advantageous to Directors.
The HOA contracting with vendors who have prior relationships with Directors without properly being vetted by neutral parties and/or management.
Using HOA funds to involve legal counsel to aid in a personal vendetta between a Director and HOA member.

What Should the Board Do If There Is A Potential Or Actual Conflict Of Interest?

Pursuant to Corporations Code section 7212, the Board may, by resolution adopted by a majority of the number of Directors then in office, provided that a quorum is present, create an executive committee consisting of two or more Directors, to serve at the pleasure of the Board. The Board has complete control over all committees. This means that the Board will decide who may serve in the committees and what authority they will have, subject only to the restrictions in the governing documents.

Accordingly, if there were any potential or actual conflicts as mentioned above, legal counsel for the association should broach the idea of the Board creating an executive committee around the conflicted Director. While Directors are well-meaning, if their financial interests, property, or personal self are implicated in any way, it would be difficult for the respective Directors to act as a Director (i.e., in good faith and in the best interest of the HOA) and not as a homeowner. This could be quite detrimental for the HOA and possibly even for the Director themselves because if there is an actual conflict of interest, that Director would be exposing themselves to personal liability; and the HOA’s Directors and Officers insurance might not be applicable if the Director acted outside the scope of their duties and decided on matters in such a way that would not benefit the HOA.

Therefore, it would be prudent to resolve any potential conflicts of interest by removing the Director from any decision they might be personally involved in and forming an executive committee around that respective Director. Should the Board have difficulty with this task, it might be best to enlist legal counsel’s help in explaining liabilities and conflicts of interest to all parties involved.

Note that if an executive committee is comprised of enough Directors so as to establish a quorum of the Board, any meeting of that committee could constitute a Board meeting that is subject to the Open Meeting Act’s requirements. Additionally, executive committees must maintain minutes pursuant to Civil Code section 5210 and make them available for inspection by the members within fifteen (15) days following approval.

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

Can the Board Reconsider an Approved Motion?

Published on: December 22, 2021 | by Steven J. Tinnelly, Esq.

*Asked and Answered

Asked – Can the Board reconsider a motion that was previously passed by a majority vote? One of the directors that voted in opposition to the motion would like the Board to reconsider.

Answered – One of the Board’s primary responsibilities is to make decisions on behalf of the association. Because the Board is comprised of volunteers with different backgrounds and varying expectations, it is common for Board members to disagree from time-to-time. The directors on the “losing side” of a motion may have concerns over the decision made, feeling that the decision was rushed and made without proper inquiry or consideration of all relevant facts. Those who are on the “winning side” of a motion may learn additional facts which calls into question the decision made. Either way, the question then becomes whether the Board is “stuck” with the decision made.

Although an association is not required to adopt and employ parliamentary procedures to govern Board meetings (unless otherwise required by the association’s governing documents), the Robert’s Rules of Order provides a procedure the association can adopt and use in addressing situations where a Board member requests reconsideration of a previously decided matter. Because it is considered an “unusual” motion, and to prevent abuse from the “losing side,” the motion should be limited to those directors that voted on the prevailing side. So, in the question posed, the director voting in opposition to the motion is unable to make a motion to reconsider. The director must then convince one or more of the directors on the prevailing side to bring the motion. The motion must be made at the Board meeting following the meeting in which the decision was made.

Once the motion is made by a Board member on the prevailing side (the moving party should be required to indicate that they voted on the prevailing side), it must be seconded. However, the second can be made by any Board member, regardless of how they voted on the matter to be reconsidered. Once a motion is made and seconded, the matter is “up for debate.” In order for the motion to carry, a majority of the Board must vote in favor of the motion to reconsider. Note, this motion does not overturn the previous decision. Rather, it simply allows for the previous decision to be reconsidered by the Board (i.e., a new vote to be made on the previous decision). Thus, if the motion passes, the original motion is placed before the Board as if it never happened.

The following is a sample script on the motion to reconsider:

Prevailing Vote Board Member: I move to reconsider the vote on the motion to grant Owner’s reimbursement request. I voted on the prevailing side.

Board Member: I second that motion.

Board President: It is moved and seconded to reconsider the vote on the motion to grant Owner’s reimbursement request. Is there any discussion on reconsidering the vote?

After discussion has occurred the Board President calls for a vote. If, as noted above, the motion passes, the original motion is placed before the Board for discussion and a vote. If the motion fails, the decision made on the original motion stands.

Parliamentary procedure is complex and often confusing. Such rules seem archaic and draconian. Nevertheless, it is important for the Board to adopt and adhere to such procedures to avoid wasting time discussing matters that have already been decided.

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

Asked and Answered: Recall Petitions

Published on: September 8, 2021 | by Steven J. Tinnelly, Esq.

*Asked & Answered

Asked – We recently completed our annual meeting/election where approximately ninety-four percent (94%) of the membership participated. Almost immediately thereafter, we received a petition to recall the Board of Directors (“Board”). Must our association go forward with the recall election? What alternate options are available to the Board?

Answered – Most common interest developments (“CIDs”) are formed as nonprofit mutual benefit corporations. Under California’s nonprofit corporation law, “any or all directors may be removed without cause” (Cal. Corp. Code § 7222 (emphasis added)); meaning that directors can be removed by the membership for any reason, or no reason at all. In order to initiate the recall process, five percent (5%) of the membership may submit a petition to the CID (usually addressed to its president) requesting that a special meeting of the membership be noticed for the purpose of recalling the Board (or any director). The notice requirements are addressed in California Corporations Code section 7511(c).

Recall elections can disrupt the effective operation of the CID and are often a costly endeavor. And, in most cases, such efforts fail to achieve the petitioning members’ desired objective—the removal of the Board. This is especially true in situations where the CID’s Bylaws allow for cumulative voting and members try to recall individual directors. (See Removal & Recall of Directors – Individual Director or Directors.) Nevertheless, under most circumstances, the CID must take action in response to a petition to recall the Board. However, based on the facts contained in the question presented, there may be other options available. The three options available in response to a valid recall petition are:

Perform only those acts required to conduct a recall election;
Do nothing in response to the petition other than to inform the petitioners that the Board has elected not to take action; or
Perform all acts necessary to hold a recall election and concurrent director election.

Each option will be discussed in turn.

Option #1 – Perform only those acts required to conduct a recall election.

According to the facts provided in this question, the petitioning members have submitted a petition to recall the Board. The petitioning members have not also requested that a director election be held in the event the recall is successful. Thus, the Board could simply notice a special meeting of the membership to recall the Board without soliciting membership votes on replacement directors. This approach is problematic for the CID.

Under California Corporations Code section 7220(b), a director continues to serve until their successor is elected, “unless the director has been removed from office.” Thus, if the recall is successful, all directors immediately cease being on the Board; in other words, the CID will be without a Board. Failure to have a Board violates California Corporations Code section 7210, which states that “[e]ach corporation shall have a board of directors.” (Emphasis added.) Moreover, without a Board, the CID will be significantly prejudiced; it will not be able to carry out its obligations under California law and its governing documents (e.g., maintenance may cease, rule enforcement ends, the CID will be unable to respond to lawsuits, etc.).

Since the CID will be without a Board, members will be forced to file a petition with the Superior Court for the appointment of a receiver pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 564(a)(9). The receiver will then manage the affairs of the CID and will initiate the procedure to conduct a director election. This, of course, is problematic in several respects. First, receivers are paid for their services. Most CIDs do not have adequate financial resources to cover unanticipated expenses. The receiver therefore may be forced (and will have the authority) to levy an emergency special assessment. Second, the receiver’s objectives are not usually in line with the interests of the CID’s members.

In light of the foregoing concerns, it would not be in the CID’s best interest to proceed in this fashion (i.e., conduct the recall election without a concurrent director election).

Option #2 – Do nothing in response to the petition other than to inform the petitioners that the Board has elected not to take action

Based on the information given, this option may be reasonable under the circumstances, especially given the overwhelming voter turnout (approximately ninety-four percent (94%) of the membership participated in the election). If such option is selected, the petitioning members will have the option of giving notice of the special meeting pursuant to California Corporations Code section 7511(c), or may petition the Court to require that such notice be given by the CID. Either way, the petitioners will be required to obtain a Court order directing the CID to prepare and distribute ballots as the petitioners do not have such authority. (See Cal. Civ. Code § 5115 (“Ballots and two preaddressed envelopes with instructions on how to return ballots shall be mailed by first-class mail or delivered by the association to every member….”).)

This option, while seemingly reasonable, raises similar concerns referenced above. To the extent members petition the court for an order compelling the CID to take action in response to the petition (including providing notice and preparing/distributing balloting materials), the CID will incur significant legal fees in defense of its position in this matter (unless insurance-appointed defense counsel steps in to provide a defense). And, in the event the petitioners are successful, the CID will incur costs relative to holding the recall election/director election. Again, most CIDs are not in a financial position to incur these additional costs.

Option #3 – Perform all acts necessary to hold a recall election and concurrent director election.

The third, and final, option—to conduct the recall election and concurrent director election—is the only option available to the CID that minimizes the CID’s financial harm and liability exposure. It is therefore the preferred course of action in response to a petition to recall the Board.

It is important to note that recent changes to the California Civil Code governing CID elections has made it practically impossible for a CID to comply with the timing requirements contained in California Corporations Code section 7511(c) and those contained in California Civil Code section 5115. Nevertheless, California Civil Code section 5100(a)(1) makes it clear that the procedural requirements contained within the Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act (“Act”) control—“Notwithstanding any other law….” The CID must therefore comply with the procedural requirements contained in California Civil Code section 5115 notwithstanding the degree to which same deviates from those contained in California Corporations Code section 7511.

Other Option Available to the CID to Prevent Recall Petitions Immediately After a Director Election

The foregoing has addressed the ways in which a CID may respond to a recall petition immediately after the conclusion of a director election. It does not, however, address how a CID may prevent such petitions from being brought in the future. One way in which a CID may prevent such petitions from being brought in the future is to adopt rules governing recall elections. Although the Act does not directly address the extent to which a CID may restrict recall petitions, other bodies of law have. For example, in the California Elections Code, a person is precluded from bringing a recall petition against “an officer of a city, county, special district, school district, community college district, or county board of education” if one ore more of the specifically identified limitations apply (e.g., the officer “has not held office during [their] current term for more than 90 days”). A CID may adopt a similar limitation for director recalls.

Each recall petition is unique. Thus, while the foregoing provides general guidance based on the particular facts identified above, each CID must confer with its attorney to determine the appropriate response to a recall petition.

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

Membership Notification of Potential Issues

Published on: May 26, 2021 | by Steven J. Tinnelly, Esq.

*Asked & Answered

Asked – Our HOA Board of Directors has become aware of a potential issue with the fire resistive construction in the walls between two condominium units. The Board is split on whether notice to the membership as a whole is warranted at this time, prior to the conclusion of the investigation, given that this potential issue affects a life safety system. Half of us feel that the issue is only technical in nature, while the other half believes that any potential issue should be communicated to the membership. We do not want to unnecessarily alarm the membership or incur thousands of dollars investigating the issue throughout the community if it is not significant, but at the same time we do not want to expose the Board or Association to a risk of liability.

Answered – The Board, as fiduciaries to the Association, is obligated to rely on subject matter experts in situations such as these. (Raven’s Cove Townhomes, Inc. v. Knuppe Development Co. (1981) 114 Cal.App.3d 783.) If the components in question fall within the scope of the Association’s repair responsibilities, the Association has a duty to retain experts to investigate the matter. Given the technical complexity of fire resistive construction systems, and the potential life safety implications, the Association should specifically ask their retained expert to evaluate and comment on whether membership notification of the issue is warranted at this time or whether further investigation is required. Often times, technical violations may exist that do not impair the overall performance of the system, but the Board should not rely on their own intuition or experience to make that determination. Such decisions can only be made after expert recommendations are provided and reviewed by the Board.

While a court will defer to a board’s discretion in its decision making, that deference will only apply if the board conducted a reasonable investigation and relied on the advice of experts. (Lamden v. La Jolla Shores Clubdominium Homeowners Association (1999) 21 Cal.4th 249.)

-Blog post authored by TLG Attorney, Tim D. Klubnikin, Esq.

Resolving Conflicts of Law Related to Recall Election Timelines in the Wake of SB 323

Published on: April 14, 2021 | by Steven J. Tinnelly, Esq.

download Recall elections of individual Board members or of the entire Board are a source of great contention, divide and added expense for HOA’s. Prior to the passage of SB 323, which took effect January 1, 2020, recall petitions and elections were already complicated. To add to this complexity, since SB 323 became law, some of the Civil Code sections associated with HOA elections now conflict with those of the Corporations Code in the context of recall elections.

According to Corporations Code Sections 7510(e) and 7511(a), assuming at least five percent (5%) of the membership has signed a petition for same, an HOA has twenty (20) days to notice the membership of a special meeting of the membership to vote to recall the Directors and to elect new Directors to replace the recalled Directors if the recall is successful. Corporations Code Section 7511(c) requires that the special membership meeting to recall the Directors be set not less than thirty-five (35) or more than ninety (90) days after receipt of the recall petition.

Civil Code Section 5100(a)(1) states, “Notwithstanding any other law or provision of the governing documents, elections . . . legally requiring a vote, election and removal of directors . . . shall be held by secret ballot in accordance with the procedures set forth in this article.” This means that elections to remove/recall directors and to elect replacement Directors must comply with Civil Code Section 5100 et seq, which was amended via the passage of SB 323.

Notably, the required timeline for a recall election set forth in the Corporations Code does not match that of the Civil Code. Specifically, Civil Code Section 5115 proscribes a timeline of at least ninety (90) days to hold an election, assuming an Association’s Election Rules have already been amended to comply with SB 323, and which does not include any extra days for weekends or holidays. Therefore, noticing the membership for a recall election within ninety (90) days of the receipt of a recall petition as mandated by Corporations Code Section 7511 is now practicably impossible to satisfy in light of the new elongated Civil Code 5115 required timeline for elections (including recall elections). This is because notice cannot be sent to the membership until the Board and its counsel have reviewed and verified the petition to ensure it meets the requirements of the law and governing documents, which cannot reasonably occur on the same day a petition is received.

Thankfully, the Civil Code provides direction to Boards facing such a morass. Pursuant to Civil Code Section 5100(e), “(i)n the event of a conflict between this article and the provisions of the Nonprofit Mutual Benefit Corporation Law (Part 3(commencing with Section 7110) of Division 2 of Title 1 of the Corporations Code) relating to election [which includes Corp. Code Section 7511], the provisions of this article shall prevail.” This means that when there is a conflict between the Corporations Code and the Civil Code regarding mandated timelines and related notice deadlines for a recall election, Boards must follow the timelines proscribed in the Civil Code.

Although the Civil Code makes it clear that its provisions supersede those of the Corporations Code with regard to recall election timelines, other attorneys have taken a different and what we believe to be an erroneous approach to this conflict by advising HOA’s that the election to recall Directors take place before the election to replace recalled Directors to attempt to satisfy both the Corporations Code and the Civil Code. However, this approach is not advisable for several reasons.

First, Corporations Code Section 7220(b) makes it clear that the recall of a Director means said Director is no longer on the Board. Unless the Bylaws provide otherwise, there is no legal authority for a recalled Director to remain on a Board with any power or authority – even in a limited capacity – once the members have voted to recall or remove said Director. Accordingly, a recalled Director may not serve on the Board in the interim between their removal and the election of their successor because they have already been removed and no longer have any power or authority.

Second, Members may only petition the Board to schedule a special membership meeting, including one to recall Directors, for a lawful purpose pursuant to Corporations Code Section 7510(e). This means that if a petition seeks to partition a recall election from the election of replacement Directors if the recall is successful at a later date, the petition is not for a lawful purpose as Corporations Code Section 7210 and most likely the Association’s governing documents require HOA’s to have a Board of Directors. Recalling a Director without immediately electing their replacement would leave the HOA without a functioning Board of Directors as required by law.

Finally, petitioning members or Boards who allow the vote to recall Directors to proceed within the Corporations Code timeline of 35-90 days of receipt of the recall petition but allowing said recalled Directors to still serve on the Board with limited powers (without legal authority for same as discussed above) until their successors can later be elected under the longer Civil Code Section 5115 timeline expose their Association to legal liability. This is because if the recalled Directors who have no lawful authority are still meeting and making decisions on behalf of the HOA, such as entering into contractual relationships, imposing disciplinary action, etc. these decisions and acts made without proper authority are arguably void under the law. Furthermore, a recall election not conducted in strict accordance with Civil Code Section 5100 et seq. runs the risk of being challenged in court. Pursuant to SB 323, judges no longer have discretion in ruling upon such challenges as Civil Code Section 5145 now requires a judge to void any election not conducted in strict accordance with Civil Code Section 5100 et seq, which creates further legal exposure for an HOA attempting to bend the rules.

In summary, because of the complexities of HOA elections and especially those for the removal of Directors, HOA’s should contact their legal counsel as soon as a recall petition is received.

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

Re-Opening HOA Facilities on an Honor System

Published on: January 20, 2021 | by Steven J. Tinnelly, Esq.

ResearchingThePost-COVIDGymExperience We have previously blogged about successfully re-opening the common area amenities during the COVID-19 pandemic. Homeowner Associations (HOAs) are tasked with various responsibilities, including the health and safety of their memberships. California has made it clear that all businesses and facilities must follow the industry guidance to reduce the risk of COVID-19 before reopening. Willfully disregarding the state government directives and subjecting the membership to COVID-19 exposure is antithetical to this purpose. As such, it is possible for HOAs to expose themselves to substantial liability if they re-opened the common area facilities using only a member honor system to enforce the industry guidance to reduce risk of COVID-19.

California has a new blueprint (“Blueprint“) for reducing COVID-19 transmission in the state with revised criteria for loosening and tightening restrictions on activities. Every county in California is assigned to a tier based on its test positivity and adjusted case rate for tier assignment including metrics from the last three (3) weeks. HOAs’ management should routinely check the restriction criteria that is respective to each HOA’s county. For example, as of December 30, 2020, Orange County and San Diego are under a Regional Stay Home Order meaning many non-essential indoor business operations are closed. Pursuant to government directives, gyms and fitness centers can open outdoors only with modifications. Indoor pools, hot tubs, saunas, and steam rooms must close. Also note that each county may impose further requirements that are stricter than the state government directive.

Understandably, HOAs have probably not accounted for a pandemic in their prior operating budget, so retaining extra personnel to enforce health guidelines would no doubt put a strain on already allocated financial resources. However, in the interest of being safe, HOAs should follow the Blueprint and industry guidance policies, particularly when it comes to re-opening common area facilities. It is quite difficult to rely solely on HOA members and their guests to conform with both California State and County guidelines regarding the re-opening of HOA common area facilities. There are always a few outlying members unwilling to cooperate and keep clean the common areas/equipment after usage, thus leaving HOAs in a situation where HOAs may become liable.

As a reminder, HOAs and the Board of Directors have an obligation to keep common areas safely maintained to ensure the health and safety of their memberships. As such, re-opening HOA common area facilities without a proper plan, protocols, and monitoring system puts the safety of an HOA’s membership in question and is antithetical to an HOA’s overall purpose, which may subject an HOA to liability. HOA Boards should discuss the matter amongst themselves and reach out to their general counsel should the need arise.

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

The Business Judgment Rule: Inapplicable as to Decisions Made Under a Material Conflict of Interest

Published on: January 6, 2021 | by Steven J. Tinnelly, Esq.

*New Case Law

Under the Business Judgment Rule, volunteer directors are shielded from liability for decisions made when those decisions are (1) consistent with the director’s duties, (2) made in good faith, and (3) in a manner it believes to be in the best interests of the HOA and its members. (See Lamden v. La Jolla Shores Clubdominium HOA (1999) 21 Cal.4th 249, 265; see also Dolan-King v. Rancho Santa Fe Assn. (2000) 81 Cal. App. 4th 965, 979.) However, as clarified in the recent case of Coley v. Eskaton, the Business Judgment Rule does not uphold decisions made by directors “acting under a material conflict of interest.” ((2020) 51 Cal.App.5th 943 (“Coley”).)

In Coley, a homeowner Board member (“Owner Member”) brought legal action against the homeowners association (“Association”), two directors (collectively, “Directors”), and the Directors’ employer (Eskaton, Eskaton Village-Grass Valley, and Eskaton Properties, Inc.) (“Employer”) alleging, among other things, that the Directors “ran the [A]ssociation for the benefit of the Eskaton entities rather than the [A]ssociation and its members” in breach of their fiduciary duties. (Id. at p. *1.) In particular, the Directors were paid by Employer and “receive bonuses and incentive compensation in part based on the Eskaton Properties’ performance. Eskaton Properties’ performance, in turn, is based in part on Eskaton Village’s performance.” (Id. at p. *5.) Thus, the Directors were incentivized to ensure that the Eskaton Village performs well despite the impact said performance would have on other communities located within the Association development (i.e., the “Patio” homes).

In support of his allegations, Owner Member provided evidence that Directors improperly “voted to require the Patio homeowners to cover 83 percent of the cost associated with security services,” as well as imposed an assessment on the Patio homeowners to cover litigation expenses. (Id. at p. *7.) The result was a financial benefit to the Eskaton Village (and subsequently, the Directors). Additionally, one of the Directors improperly shared the Association’s attorney-client privileged information with Employer and Employer’s legal counsel. (Id.)

Employer and Directors objected to Owner Member’s argument that the foregoing actions constituted a breach of Director’s fiduciary duties to the Association and its members. In support of their objection, they argued that Owner Member failed to adequately demonstrate that Directors’ conduct “was motivated by specific self-interest,” that Directors “benefited from their breach of fiduciary duty,” and that Directors’ actions “amounted to mismanagement of the [Association].” (Id. at p. *51.) However, the Court of Appeals rejected Employer/Directors arguments concluding that “[o]nce [Owner Member] established the existence of a fiduciary relationship, breach of fiduciary duty, and damages, he was entitled to damages absent some applicable affirmative defense.” (Id. at p. *55.)

The Court noted that Owner Member satisfied this burden: (1) Directors, as members of the Board of Directors for the Association, owed fiduciary duties to the Association and its members; (2) Directors breached those duties by: (a) requiring Patio owners to pay a greater share of the security-services fees and legal fees” in violation of the CC&Rs, and (b) disclosing Association’s attorney-client privileged communications with Employer and Employer’s legal counsel; and (3) Owner Member (and other Patio owners) were injured as a result of the breach. (Id. at pp. **52-55.) And, as noted earlier, the Business Judgment Rule defense did not apply because Directors were acting under a material conflict of interest. As a result, liability was imposed against both Employer and against each Director personally.

This case is important because it highlights the fact that, while the Business Judgment Rule will ordinarily protect individual directors from liability for decisions made, it does not extend to decisions made while acting under a material conflict of interest. Directors therefore should refrain from participating in the decision-making process when a conflict of interest exists in order to avoid personal liability exposure.

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