Contracts & Easements

SB 150 and the Distinction Between Rental Prohibitions and Rental Restrictions

Published on: October 3, 2011 | by Steven J. Tinnelly, Esq.

*Asked & Answered

Asked – I read your blog post on SB 150 and the new legislation impacting rental restrictions. If I am currently required to provide my HOA with a copy of my lease agreement with my tenant, will I still be required to do so after SB 150 takes effect?

Answered – Probably. Senate Bill 150 “SB 150”, which takes effect January 1, 2012, will have a significant impact on the rental landscape within Homeowners Associations (“HOAs”). At the outset, it is important to note that SB 150 insulates homeowners from rental restrictions that were not already in place at the time the homeowner bought into the community. Therefore, assuming that you already own the property within your HOA, you would still be bound by the current rental restrictions and requirements regardless of the new legislation.

However, assuming you are not yet an owner of property within the HOA, the answer will depend on how California law will ultimately treat rental prohibitions as compared to rental restrictions. SB 150 does outlaw a HOA from having rental prohibitions. However, it is less clear as to whether less serious restrictions, such as rental period minimums, will still be permitted. If rental period minimums are ultimately upheld as valid, reasonable rental restrictions, then the only way a HOA could enforce the restriction would be to examine the contents of lease agreements such as yours.

We have published a resource on SB 150 that discusses the new legislation in more detail and provides a recommendation for HOAs that have, or are considering, adopting rental restrictions in their community. The resource, entitled “Senate Bill 150 and the Impact on Rental Restrictions” is available for download in our Library.

To read our previous blog post on SB 150, click here.

To submit questions to Tinnelly Law Group, click here.

Should your Association Permit the Installation of Cell Towers?

Published on: April 18, 2011 | by Steven J. Tinnelly, Esq.

A recent story in the Coast News highlights a situation faced by some HOAs: whether or not to permit the installation of cellular towers on Association property.

In Encinitas, a HOA Board is supporting a ballot measure that would grant Verizon a 20 year lease and allow a cellular tower to be placed on one of the Association’s greenbelts. The fees generated by the agreement would total $800,000 in new revenue for the HOA.

Regardless of the financial incentive, some of the HOA’s members fear that the cell tower would negatively impact their health and property values. Though the health-related argument is speculative, the members in opposition to the measure feel that maintaining property values is a legitimate concern.

To read the full story, click here.

Many of our HOA clients have permitted similar types of cellular installations on Association property without experiencing any negative impact on the community. A HOA Board should always take into consideration the views voiced by its membership when determining what is in the best interest of its community. However, HOA Boards and members should not discount how beneficial new revenue streams can be for an Association.

HOA Not Liable for Injuries Sustained by Independent Contractor

Published on: April 4, 2011 | by Steven J. Tinnelly, Esq.

A recently decided case held that the California Occupational Safety and Health Act (Cal-OSHA) did not impose on a Homeowners Association (HOA) any duty to an independent contractor who was injured in a fall while servicing AC units on rooftops at the HOA complex.

In Iversen v. California Village Homeowners Association, 2011 WL 1034261 (“Iversen“), an independent contractor brought premises liability and negligence causes of action against a HOA seeking damages for injuries he sustained in a falling from a ladder while servicing the HOA’s AC units. The independent contractor alleged that the HOA failed to provide a ladder that complied with Cal-OSHA regulations–a set of provisions that are “intended to assure safe and healful working conditions” for workers in California. The HOA moved for summary judgment by contending that it was not required to comply with Cal-OSHA because the plaintiff was an independent contractor and could not establish that the HOA owed him a duty of care or breached a duty of care.

City Held Responsible for Maintaining Berm Supporting HOA Property

Published on: March 14, 2011 | by Steven J. Tinnelly, Esq.

In Coronado Cays Homeowners Association v. City of Coronado (2011), the City of Coronado (“City”) appealed a judgment in which the court determined the City, rather than the Coronado Cays Homeowners Association (“Association”) is responsible for the maintenance of a berm that provides lateral support to bulkheads located on Association property.

The original developer of the project had placed concrete bulkheads along “Lot 90” of the development to act as a retainer for the waterway that was to be dredged on the adjoining lot, “Lot C”. The developer then dedicated “Lot C” to the City for public recreational use while reserving a 55′ wide easement for docks and related structures for the exclusive use of the Association’s residents.

The gradual erosion of the supporting berm in which the bulkheads are embedded resulted in the failing of several bulkheads. Though the Association conceded that it is responsible for maintaining the bulkheads, the Association sought a judicial determination that the City is responsible for maintaining the berm since it is located in the waterway.