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

Articles Posted in Enforcement

dji-drones-update-registration-2

Serial dog poop litterers, unauthorized parking of vehicles, architectural violations, smoking nuisance—the list goes on and on when it comes to common “repeat violations” that a homeowners association (“HOA”) encounters on a day-to-day basis. With the increasing number of repeat violations and limited number of HOA board members and property managers, questions have surfaced whether or not HOA’s may, or should, utilize drones to enforce violations. Specifically, HOA boards are concerned with the legal implications that such utilization may impose because, well, why wouldn’t an HOA board want to send out a drone to inspect an architectural violation or monitor a smoking nuisance in lieu of physically walking to the property to do the same? In addition to the convenience factor that drones provide, it gives HOAs the added benefit of having concrete, recorded evidence should the violation escalate to the level of arbitration or judicial enforcement.

From a legal standpoint, the two primary areas of law that factor into HOA drone usage are (1) privacy law and (2) property law.

Privacy

While there are numerous privacy laws and regulations, for HOA purposes, California Civil Code §§ 1708.8 (a) and (b) (collectively, the “Provision”) are the most applicable in regard to drone surveillance and enforcement. The Provision prohibits both “physical” and “constructive” invasion of privacy. Physical invasion of privacy requires the element of intentional trespass onto the land or airspace of the home (discussed further below) while constructive invasion of privacy does not require the element of physical trespass onto land or airspace.

In any event, both Provisions hold one liable for invasion of privacy when same utilizes a drone to “capture any type of visual image, sound recording, or other physical impression of the plaintiff [e.g., homeowner] engaging in a private, personal, or familial activity and the invasion occurs in a manner that is offensive to a reasonable person.” (Emphasis added.)  Ah yes, the “reasonable person” standard comes into play here as it does in almost 99.99% of standards used to dictate liability. Interpret it exactly how it sounds. If an HOA is utilizing the drone to capture a serial dog poop litterer in the community park, it certainly would not offend a reasonable person walking their dog in the park, nor would the violating individual have a “reasonable expectation of privacy” (a standard also used to adjudicate privacy suits) on common area owned by the HOA.

On the other hand, if an HOA is investigating a nuisance matter of excessive cigarette and/or marijuana smoke, can the HOA operate a drone from the common area zooming into the living room? Probably not. While one may make the argument that if the smoking activity was viewable in plain sight from common area streets (e.g., curtains wide open) that the individual has no reasonable expectation of privacy, it is likely to fail because the principle of an individual’s right and expectation of privacy within his/her home is held to an extremely high standard. Furthermore, it is best practice for HOA’s to err on the safe side of caution and avoid potential exposure to liability.

Property

In addition to looming privacy concerns, HOAs need to be aware of property laws that protect homeowners from drone usage; in particular, communities that consist of single family homes wherein the homeowner owns the airspace above the land. In the early stages of property law (also known as “common law”), the principle that controlled for centuries was “[w]hoever’s is the soil, it is theirs all the way to Heaven and all the way to hell.” Of course, this has changed over the years with the evolution of mankind and (flight) technology starting with the groundbreaking U.S. Supreme Court case United States v. Causby, wherein the Court held that homeowners owned the airspace above ground level up to 365 feet (anything above that was public domain).

Today, homeowners own the airspace 500 feet above ground level in “uncongested areas.” (14 CFR § 91.119(c).)  This is the standard generally applied to airspace demarcation in residential communities (i.e., HOA’s).  See Lacey v. United States, 595 F.2d 614 (1979); see also Aaron v. United States, 311 F.2d 790, 801 (1963).   The idea behind this is to give homeowners property rights to their parcel of land as high above it as “normal use of the land” requires. As such, unless the drone is capable of operating in excess of 500 feet above ground level (at which point no practical HOA purpose will likely be served), under very limited circumstances should a drone ever be hovering above a homeowner’s physical land or airspace.

California HOA lawyers HOAs should utilize drones to enforce violations of their governing documents where appropriate—this should be considered on a case-by-case basis. Whether it is a serial dog poop litterer or smoking nuisance matter, it is advised that HOAs that are intending on utilizing drones use sound judgment, and more so, consult with their general counsel. Keep in mind that in order to operate a drone for HOA-related purposes, the HOA will have to apply for an exemption from registering the drone with the Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”).

From our experience, with any recording devices implemented by HOAs, it is best practice and strongly recommended for HOAs to adopt a “Surveillance Camera Policy” or “Drone Policy,” wherein rules are implemented to regulate such devices and afford protection to the HOA.

-Blog post authored by TLG Attorney, Andrew M. Jun, Esq.

Chained-Social-Media-Facebook-Twitter-YouTube-Regulations-Internet-900Like it or not, we live in the age of social media. It is undeniable and has dramatically transformed the way we communicate in every arena, including homeowners associations (“HOA”).  Information, opinions and images are broadcast and circulated at a rapid pace with little or no oversight involved.  These unfiltered transmissions over social media airwaves can have profound impacts on homeowners associations’ governance (board of directors), as well as its membership (homeowners).  Understanding the legal implications of social media use in the context of managed communities is critical to avoid conflicts, unexpected costs and legal battles.

In recent years, we have seen a myriad of lawsuits stemming from social media abuse:  In Tennessee, a homeowner faced legal action from her HOA for using the name of her subdivision on her personal Facebook neighborhood page.  In New York City, co-op residents aired their dirty laundry online, resulting in multiple lawsuits.  Elsewhere, a vacation-condominium owner sued a guest for $15,000 over negative social media comments.

It is not uncommon to find defamatory language being hurled at board members or management by disgruntled homeowners on online community forums, board members purporting to speak on behalf of the association on their personal Facebook pages, and association social media channels turning into de facto board meetings in violation of state law and governing document protocols.

These problems arise largely due to an inherent discord between the nature of social media and how community associations operate.  Association managed communities are highly regulated and restricted – indeed, their chief governing instrument is titled Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (“CC&Rs”). To the contrary, social media regulation is grossly inadequate.  Simply put, people are free to share their thoughts and opinions without real consequences, which often leads to capricious communications.  However, people cannot do this in community associations. For instance, homeowners cannot blurt out opinions in board meetings – in fact, homeowners are often not even allowed to speak, unless given permission.

Unfortunately, the legal landscape has been quite slow to catch up with the problems associated with unbridled communication.  There are few, if any, state laws to govern the use of social media in the realm of corporate governance.  Moreover, developers who write the CC&Rs are focusing on issues like special assessments and architectural approval, not whether board treasurer Bob has the right to post his opinions on the clubhouse renovation on Twitter.

Continue Reading ›

no-kids-allowed*Asked & Answered

Asked – Our Association is seeking legal guidance regarding children playing in the common areas and driveways. Several homeowners have complained about the number of children playing without supervision.  Drivers report their concern for the children’s safety as there have been several reports of children almost hurt. The Board would like to know if they have the authority to restrict children from playing in the common areas and/or driveways? 

Answered – The short answer is that the Association would be exposing itself to a risk of liability under federal and state anti-discrimination laws by adopting a rule or policy that outright prohibited children from playing in the common areas; including the streets and driveways. This risk would extend to other rules that specifically apply to children only, as opposed to all members/residents of the community.    

Generally, an association should proceed with caution when attempting to create and/or enforce rules that specifically apply to children. Federal and state law provides that it is unlawful to limit the use of privileges, services, or facilities associated with a dwelling because of familial status (the law also recognizes other protected classes including those based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, and disability). Familial status is generally defined as having one or more individuals under 18 years of age who reside with a parent or with another person with care and legal custody of that individual. The effect of association rules based on familial status is that families with children, and those children, are treated differently and less favorably than households comprised solely of adults.

Federal courts have found that an association engages in actionable discrimination when rules specifically target children without sufficient justification. For example, rules that restrict only children from the benefits and privileges of common areas or amenities (such as pools, parkways, streets, etc.) have been struck down as impermissible restrictions against a protected class; namely familial status.

An association pool rule that restricts children under the age of 16 from using the pool without adult supervision would be an example of an impermissible rule. An association may argue that such a rule is intended to protect children. However, it would be easy to demonstrate that many children that fall under the scope of the rule are far more proficient swimmers than many adults (e.g. junior lifeguards). However, a rule that prohibits children under 5 from using the common area spa without adult supervision would likely fare better if a legal challenge was brought because there is a clear and identifiable safety risk with children under 5, regardless of swimming proficiency. Specific adult-only swim hours would be another example of an impermissible rule.

To avoid the risk of a discrimination claim, associations should strive to craft and enforce rules that apply equally to all members and residents within a community. Facially neutral rules of general applicability are far more likely to withstand judicial scrutiny. Alternatively, if an association has a legitimate and compelling justification for a rule that only applies to children (or other protected class), the rule must be the least restrictive means to accomplish the identified goal. This is a high burden to meet, so counsel should be consulted to avoid unnecessary and costly issues down the road.

California HOA lawyers Associations should be aware that creating and/or enforcing rules that apply only to children (and other protected classes such as race, color, national origin, religion, sex, or disability) exposes an association to federal and state discrimination claims. Associations seeking to address legitimate concerns or issues, such as children’s safety, should work with counsel to create enforceable rules that steer clear of potential discrimination against protected classes.

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

16106042-10158060050850114-2869680242197711700-n-1484846578*New Legislation

On July 30, 2019, SB 652 was signed into law by Governor Gavin Newsome in response to several incidents in which a homeowner’s association (HOA) asked a resident to remove a mezuzah from their unit’s entry door or doorframe.  A mezuzah is a small scroll that is affixed to the doorframe of Jewish homes to fulfill the mitzvah (Biblical commandment).  For observant Jews, this is not a choice, but rather, a religious duty.  Attempts to bar them from fulfilling this duty violated their religious freedom, argued Jewish residents.

In Connecticut, an HOA threatened to fine a resident fifty ($50) dollars if she did not remove the mezuzah affixed to her doorframe.  The HOA permitted religious displays (e.g. Christmas wreaths) on doors, but restricted any adornments from being placed on exterior walls.  The HOA argued that doorframes are considered exterior walls.

In Florida, an HOA ordered a resident to remove a mezuzah, citing its bylaws prohibiting owners and occupants from attaching, hanging, affixing or displaying anything on the exterior walls, doors, balconies, railings and windows of the building.

In New York, an HOA fined a resident fifty ($50) dollars for affixing a mezuzah to her doorframe shortly after she moved in.  The HOA cited its bylaws prohibiting residents from altering the exterior of their home without approval from the Association.  The rule included affixing of signs, advertisements or statuary.

While there were only a handful of instances nationwide in which a resident was asked to remove a mezuzah, the bill was designed to have a broader scope in protecting any displays of religious items on doors and doorframes so long as the display reflects “sincerely held religious beliefs.”  Specifically, SB 652 prohibits a “property owner” (defined to mean an HOA, an HOA board, or landlord) from adopting or enforcing any rule that prohibits the display of one or more “religious items” on an entry door or doorframe.  The bill defines “religious item” to mean any item displayed “because of sincerely held religious beliefs.”  The bill also identifies reasonable exceptions, such as allowing an HOA or landlord to prohibit the display of anything that threatens public health or safety, violates existing law, contains obscenities, hinders the opening or closing of any entry door, or is larger than 36” by 12” inches.  Also, an HOA may require a separate interest owner to remove a religious item as necessary to perform maintenance on a door or doorframe.

Prior to SB 562, federal and state law provided some protections against religious discrimination in housing, but the author of the bill believed that these protections were not sufficient enough to protect the display of religious items.   For example, the federal Fair Housing Act (FHA) prohibits housing discrimination on the basis of religion.  Likewise, the state Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) makes it unlawful for the owner of any housing accommodation to discriminate against or harass any person because of the religion of that person. (Gov. Code § 12955.)  The Davis-Stirling Act, which regulates homeowner’s associations and common interest developments, contains a provision that prohibits the HOA governing documents from prohibiting the posting or displaying of noncommercial signs, posters, flags, banners, on or in an owner’s separate interest, subject to certain exceptions.  (Civil Code § 4710.)  To the extent that a “religious item” is a sign, poster, flag, or banner, one could argue that existing law already prohibits an HOA from adopting or enforcing any rule that bans the display of religious items.  But arguably there is a question of whether a mezuzah or cross hung from a door is a “sign.”  SB 562 eliminates that ambiguity by protecting any “item” which is displayed because of a sincere religious belief, whether or not it is a “sign.”

SB 652, which takes effect January 1, 2020, will likely conflict with many HOA policies, which have aesthetic and architectural rules that bar hanging anything on an entry doorframe.  According to the author of the bill, such restrictions from HOAs leave the affected people unable to freely practice their religious obligations and in some instances are forced to leave their residence and seek another place to live.  By passing this bill, California’s legislature has followed the recent trend in caselaw suggesting that the religious freedom of individuals should take precedence over the communal interests of homeowner’s associations.

California HOA lawyers Notwithstanding, it is important to note that the right afforded to HOA members and tenants in this bill is extremely limited, only applying to a “religious item” and, even then, only when the item is posted on an entry door or doorframe.  For instance, the bill would not provide protection to an owner who wanted to post a similarly-sized religious item in a window, or a door other than an “entry” door.   

-Blog post authored by TLG Attorney, Reuben D. Kim, Esq.

*New Library Article!

Untitled-1

Workplace harassment and hostile work environments are nothing new for management professionals.  Emotionally charged conversations can become uncomfortable and antagonistic for many managers.  Unfortunately, such dialogue frequently crosses the line from demanding direction to demeaning personal attacks.

Previously, employer liability for employee claims based on nonemployee conduct was generally limited to sexual harassment.  Effective January 1, 2019, newly adopted California law (Senate Bill 1300) lowers the burden by which California employees can bring successful harassment claims against California employers and expands the scope by which those employers may now be responsible to their employees for third party, nonemployee conduct, among other things.

Our HOA attorneys have authored a new article to generally summarize SB 1300 and to discuss its application to common interest development practice.

hoa laws The article, entitled “Workplace Harassment in a HOA Environment,” is available for download from our firm’s library. You can access the article by clicking here.

agriculture-berries-bunch-760281-e1551829548999In Eith v. Ketelhut, No. B272028 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 17, 2018), a homeowners association featuring estate properties where members maintain fruit orchards and vineyards yielding fruit that can be made into wine and offered to the public for sale required the Board of Directors (“Board”) to determine if sale of products made from fruit produced on the property is a prohibited business or commercial activity under the CC&Rs. Looking to the purpose of the prohibition – to protect the residential character of the community – the Board examined whether the activity negatively impacted the residential character of the community.

In 2003 the Ketelhuts received approval from the Los Robles Hills Estates Homeowners Association’s (“HOA”) Architectural Committee (“Committee”) to plant landscaping on their property which included a vineyard of 600 plants. The Committee approved the Ketelhuts’ vineyard as it had approved other members’ avocado and fruit trees. The Ketelhuts did not mention using the grapes to make wine for sale. Five years later in 2008 the fruit was harvested and removed to an off-site winery to be made into wine. The Ketelhuts commenced a wine business in 2009, obtaining the necessary licenses, and began selling wine in 2010 over the Internet to the public and local restaurants and hotels. The Ketelhuts characterized the vineyard as a hobby, but they filed forms with the IRS claiming the vineyard as a “business.”

Eith and other neighbors demanded the Ketelhuts cease operating a commercial vineyard, so the Board investigated the Ketelhuts’ vineyard operation. The Board determined that the vineyard did not constitute business or commercial activity prohibited by the CC&Rs, because there was no negative impact on the community. No wine was produced or stored on the property, there was no tasting room drawing retail traffic to the community, and the wine was sold over the Internet to the public and local restaurants and hotels and shipped from an off-site warehouse.

Eith and other neighbors sued the Ketelhuts for operation of the vineyard as a prohibited business or commercial activity in violation of the HOA’s CC&Rs. The trial court elected not to decide whether the operation of the vineyard was a prohibited business or commercial activity, but to find in favor of the Ketelhuts by applying the rule of judicial deference adopted by the California Supreme Court in Lamden v. La Jolla Shores Clubdominium Homeowners Assn. (1999) 21 Cal.4th 249 (“Lamden”) to the Board’s decision that the vineyard was not a prohibited use based “upon reasonable investigation, in good faith and with regard for the best interests of the community association and its members.”

The neighbors appealed the decision in favor of the Ketelhuts to the California Court of Appeal, which confirmed the trial court’s application of the judicial deference rule in the Lamden case stating, “Common interest developments are best operated by the board of directors, not the courts.” The Court of Appeal further concluded that the Board correctly interpreted the CC&R prohibition of business and commercial activity. The purpose of the prohibition was to protect the community’s residential character; therefore, the prohibition does not encompass activity that has no effect on the community’s residential character.

California HOA lawyers The Board was in a much better position than the courts to evaluate the vineyard’s effect on the community and found that the residential character of the community was not impacted as a result of the growing and picking of the grapes on the property. No business or commercial activity of making and selling wine occurred on the property and offering the wine for sale over the Internet did not transform use of the property into a prohibited business or commercial activity. At all times the operation of the vineyard was fully consistent with residential use.

-Blog post authored by TLG Attorney, Terri A. Morris, Esq.

anti-SLAPP*Unpublished Opinion

The recent unpublished opinion of Chemers v. Quail Hill Community Association et al. (2018) shines some light on the oft-misunderstood California Anti-SLAPP statute and its effectiveness as a defense for actions by a homeowners association’s board of directors.  The Fourth District California Court of Appeal held that certain actions by the board in a dispute with a director were not in furtherance of the right of free speech or petition as to be protected by the anti-SLAPP statute.

Plaintiff Evan Chemers (“Chemers”) was a member of the board of directors for defendant Quail Hill Community Association (“Quail Hill”), a planned unit development located in Irvine, California.  A series of disagreements and escalating tension between Chemers and other members of the board resulted in the board taking affirmative steps to remove Chemers from the board permanently.  In June 2016, the board proposed a resolution to create an executive committee consisting of all board members except for Chemers, and in July 2016, the board proposed a resolution to declare Chemers’ board seat vacant on the ground that he did not meet the member-residency requirement.  Chemers was not afforded an opportunity to present any evidence of residency, address the board, or have his legal counsel present when he was formally removed.

In October 2016, Chemers filed a lawsuit against the association and other directors, alleging eight causes of action including breach of governing documents, breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, declaratory relief, and various violations of the Civil Code and Corporations Code.  In response, the defendants filed an anti-SLAPP motion seeking an order striking the complaint and the eight causes of action within it.  The trial court granted the moving defendants’ anti-SLAPP motion as to six of the eight causes of action.

Chemers subsequently appealed the trial court’s decision, and the Court of Appeal concluded that the trial court erred by granting the anti-SLAPP motion as to the claims alleged against Quail Hill for breach of contract, violation of Civil Code section 5850 et seq., and for two counts of declaratory relief.  The Court of Appeal reasoned that none of those four causes of action arose out of protected activity – whether speech or petitioning activity – within the meaning of the anti-SLAPP statute.

Continue Reading ›

BikeExhaust-e1534522784547*Asked & Answered

Asked – We have several vehicles that are “extremely loud” due to their exhaust systems. Even with all windows and doors closed and these vehicles 1/2 way across the complex, there is NO PROBLEM hearing them when they start them. They even set off car alarms near them. Can we ask them to address the noise they cause?

Answered – Noisy neighbors are a frequent occurrence in common interest developments, especially in dense housing communities (e.g., condominiums). And while the California Supreme Court has indicated that individuals “in a community must put up with a certain amount of annoyance, inconvenience and interference,” (San Diego Gas & Electric Co. v. Superior Court (1996) 13 Cal.4th 893, 937), that does not extend to situations which have a substantial impact on residents’ use and enjoyment of their separate interests.

Indeed, residents of a common interest development are generally entitled to the peaceful use and enjoyment of their respective separate interests as well as the common areas. Ensuring such peaceful use and enjoyment is what underlies many of the provisions set forth in an association’s recorded Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (“CC&Rs”). Residents purchase or rent their separate interests within an association in reliance on those restrictions being consistently and faithfully enforced.

The peaceful use and enjoyment to which residents are entitled is typically reflected in the association’s CC&Rs under the heading “use restrictions.” The following is a common example of a use restriction preserving the right of residents to the peaceful use and enjoyment of their separate interest:

No Condominium shall be used in such a manner as to obstruct or interfere with the enjoyment of occupants of other Condominiums or annoy them by unreasonable noises or otherwise, nor shall any nuisance be committed or permitted to occur in any Condominium.

This provision, alone, can serve as a basis to prevent residents from operating vehicles in the community that are “extremely loud.” However, some associations go a step further and adopt operating rules identifying what constitutes an “unreasonable” noise. For example, an association may adopt an operating rule prohibiting residents from operating vehicles that exceed a certain decibel level; or, more commonly, adopt an operating rule prohibiting residents from operating vehicles that produce “excessive” noise thereby providing the Board of Directors with the broad discretion to determine what constitutes “excessive.”

hoa laws In sum, the ability to regulate conduct or activities that constitute a nuisance is well within the scope of authority granted to an association. This power extends to prohibiting residents from operating extremely loud vehicles within the community. Associations facing such issues can and should commence enforcement efforts to remedy the violation, and, if the association has not done so already, adopt operating rules addressing such conduct. 

Content provided by TLG attorney Matthew T. Plaxton, Esq.

To submit questions to the HOA attorneys at Tinnelly Law Group, click here.

social_media-e1532558044753*Unpublished Opinion

With increasing frequency, homeowners associations are confronted with members publishing content related to their association and its operations, whether on Facebook, blog posts, or other various online forums. Sometimes these publications are critical of the association board of directors, misrepresent important information and facts, or fraudulently purport to be official association publications. The various potential issues associated with member publications are seemingly endless, but California courts periodically provide clarity regarding issues that can arise in the context of member/association publications. The recent unpublished opinion of Kulick v. Leisure Village Association (2018) arose out of the publication of such member content and provides insight into how courts view and address some of these issues.

The Kulick case involved two separate lawsuits between a homeowner (“Kulick”) and his homeowner’s association (“Association”), the Association’s board of directors (“Board”), and the Association’s attorneys. Kulick, a long-time resident with a history of conflict and grievances against the Association, anonymously published and circulated newsletters (“Newsletters”) within the community in violation of the Association’s rules and regulations prohibiting anonymous publications. Kulick’s anonymous Newsletters were frequently critical of the Association Board.

The Association successfully filed suit against Kulick for intentional interference with Association insurance coverage. In response to the Association’s lawsuit, Kulick levied accusations against the Board in one of his anonymous Newsletters. In defense of Kulick’s claims, the Association (through counsel) prepared and circulated a letter (“Letter”) to each community member addressing Kulick’s specific allegations by denying Board misconduct and inviting the membership to view court filings in the pending matter. The Letter described Kulick’s most recent missive as a “reckless communication” containing “unfounded, inaccurate, and spiteful allegations” against the Association, Board, and the Association’s attorneys. It also contained details regarding the then-pending matter and the Association’s success in their preliminary injunction against Kulick. After the Letter was circulated, Kulick brought a lawsuit against the Association for defamation arising out of the Letter to the membership, among other causes of action.

The trial court dismissed Kulick’s case after the Association brought an Anti-SLAPP motion against the defamation claim (“SLAPP” stands for Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation; such motions are designed to protect defendants who have been sued for acts in furtherance of a constitutionally protected right of free speech or petition). On appeal, the court found that the Letter constituted “protected activity” as a public writing (i.e. circulated to all members throughout the community) in connection with an issue of public interest – the ongoing controversy of the then-pending lawsuit between the Association and Kulick. Additionally, the court found that Kulick could not demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits because “expressions of opinion that do not include or imply false factual assertions do not constitute actionable defamation,” among other reasons. For these reasons, the appellate court upheld the trial court’s ruling against Kulick.

While the Kulick case did not ultimately address the anonymous nature of Kulick’s publications or the validity of the Association rule prohibiting them, Kulick raises important issues for associations to consider when confronted with homeowner publications, or association responses to them. While it is unclear to what extent associations can restrict member publications, such as the regulation of anonymous publications, the court in Kulick signaled an association’s ability to address specific member allegations in the public forum of the community. However, when addressing such claims, associations should be mindful of the content of these responses as certain communications are not permissible (e.g. false assertions of fact, etc.). Conversely, an association has rights against defamation published by its members and should address any member publications that defame the association, its board of directors, managing agent, or employees.

Additionally, associations should be vigilant regarding member publications that purport to be official association publications, or publications that are circulated that contain patently false information. Such publications can cause significant disruption in an association’s affairs if allowed to exist and perpetuate. Ultimately, while the line between permissible and actionable content is by no means clear and varies case by case, associations should be alert for member publications that contain clearly false assertions of fact or publications that purport to be official association communications. If you have concerns regarding member publications or appropriate association responses to them, association counsel should be contacted to review the material and discuss potential remedies to the extent they are available.

California HOA lawyers Although Kulick is an unpublished opinion, it provides an indication of how a future court may rule in a similar situation.  When confronted with member publications, homeowners associations should consider whether the published content violates any association rules and regulations, whether it contains false assertions of fact, or whether the content purports to be or could be reasonably construed as an official association publication intended to mislead the recipients and/or members.

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

Court-TrialPreliminary injunctions are temporary court orders requested by one party that prevents another party from pursuing a particular course of conduct until the conclusion of a trial on the merits.  A preliminary injunction is proper where the moving party proves the following two factors: (1) the likelihood that the moving party will ultimately prevail on the merits at the time of trial; and (2) that relative interim harm to the parties from issuance of the injunction weighs in that party’s favor.

Occasionally, HOAs seek preliminary injunctions as a means to enforce the HOA’s governing documents.  Among other reasons, the purpose behind that request for judicial relief is to restrain homeowner actions or omissions when such conduct potentially poses a threat of harm or risk to Association Property or the Association’s Members.  Examples include a homeowner’s unauthorized alteration of structural common area components (e.g. removal of a bearing wall within a condominium unit; unapproved building activities on common area property).

Under the Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act (“Act”), at the conclusion of a trial on the merits, the prevailing party shall be awarded reasonable attorney’s fees and costs in an action to enforce the HOA’s governing documents (Civil Code Section 5975).  Historically, there has been some question as to whether a moving party may recover statutory attorney’s fees and costs if the court grants a preliminary injunction in a HOA enforcement action.  In January 2018, the California Court of Appeal addressed that issue in the case of Artus v. Gramercy Towers Condominium Association (19 Cal.App.5th 923).

Continue Reading ›