Enforcement

Swimming Pools: Required Safety Signs

Published on: June 25, 2013 | by Steven J. Tinnelly, Esq.

pool signs hoa attorny california.png *Asked & Answered

Asked – Is there a new sign requirement for pools located in homeowners associations?

Answered – Yes. Title 24 of the California Building Code was updated to require new safety signs for public swimming pools. (Association pools are considered public pools.) Two new signs are required for all pools:

A sign shall be posted on the exterior side of all gates and doors leading into the pool enclosure stating, “KEEP CLOSED.”
A sign in letters at least 1 inch high and in a language or diagram that is clearly stated shall be posted at the entrance of the pool area which states that persons having currently active diarrhea, or who have had active diarrhea within the previous 14 days shall not be allowed to enter the pools water.

A third new sign must be posted at pool areas that have spray ground (interactive fountains) that children run through, and made visible from any part of the spray ground that states, “CAUTION: WATER IS RECIRCULATED. DO NOT DRINK.”

The signs are required immediately on all new pool construction; however, on existing pools it will be up to the Environmental Health Services personnel that inspect the association’s pool to provide the deadline for positing the new signs. It would be prudent to have the signs posted as soon as possible.

Content provided by TLG attorney Terri Morris

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

HOA Restrictions on Companion and Service Animals

Published on: May 29, 2013 | by Steven J. Tinnelly, Esq.

service animal hoa law accomodation attorneys disability.png *Asked & Answered

Asked – Our high-rise condominium association does not allow dogs weighing over 40 pounds, but we have an owner that has requested an exception for her “companion” dog that is a 70 pound Golden Retriever. Does our HOA have to allow the homeowner to have her companion dog?

Answered – Probably. The HOA may not discriminate against individuals with disabilities by prohibiting a “companion” animal or a “service” animal. The HOA’s weight restrictions for pets in the community does not apply to companion or service animals because they are not “pets.” Companion animals provide psychiatric support to individuals suffering from a mental disability such as depression, claustrophobia, certain types of autism, and other disorders that are mental in nature, while service animals assist with physical disabilities.

The Board must be careful to properly address the request for an accommodation due to a disability. If the homeowner can provide documentation of her diagnosed need for the animal, the Association must permit her to keep the animal in the community. The request should be handled quickly and with respect for the individual.

Handling requests for accommodation can be challenging. For more information on this topic, please visit our library and review our article titled “Responding to Requests for Accommodation.”

Content provided by TLG attorney Terri Morris

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

HOA Gets ‘Smoked’ in Nuisance Enforcement Case

Published on: March 19, 2013 | by Steven J. Tinnelly, Esq.

smoking-hoa

The problems posed by second-hand smoke have become a burning issue for California homeowners associations (“HOAs”), expecially condominium developments. A HOA typically does have the authority to adopt operating rules that prohibit smoking in common areas and exclusive use common areas; however, those rules may be insufficient to address problems posed by second-hand smoke emanating from inside an owner’s unit. Prohibiting that type of activity generally requires language to that effect contained in the HOA’s recorded CC&Rs. Where there is no such language, HOAs often refuse to get involved and opt to treat those situations as a “neighbor-to-neighbor” disputes.

However, we have written before about how a HOA may have an obligation to enforce the nuisance provisions contained in its CC&Rs to address problems posed by smoking within units. An Orange County jury recently affirmed this fact in the first ruling of its kind in California. The jury in Chauncey v. Bella Palermo Homeowners’ Association, et al., OCSC Case No. 30-2011-00461681, found the defendants HOA and its management company negligent and also found the HOA in breach of its CC&Rs for failing to enforce its nuisance provision protecting the plaintiffs’ rights to their “quiet enjoyment” of their unit. The jury held the HOA liable for doing nothing to abate the alleged nuisance resulting from the second-hand smoke, despite the fact that the CC&Rs contained no provision specifically prohibiting smoking within the units.

More and more municipalities are adopting “no-smoking” ordinances within multi-dwelling residential units. However, where there are no such ordinances, or any similar restrictions contained in a HOA’s recorded CC&Rs, a HOA may be still be obligated to enforce its nuisance provisions to address problems posed by second-hand smoke emanating from the interior of a unit. Where the problems persist, a HOA should consult with its legal counsel and also consider a formal amendment to its CC&Rs to prohibit smoking throughout the entire development.

Content by TLG attorney Terri Morris

Recovering Pre-Litigation Attorney’s Fees in HOA Disputes

Published on: March 13, 2013 | by Steven J. Tinnelly, Esq.

*New Case Law

In our recent blog post entitled “Are Attorney’s Fees for ADR Recoverable?” we touched briefly on the recently decided case of Grossman v. Park Fort Washington Association (2012) 212 Cal. App. 4th 1128 (“Grossman”). In response to requests for more information on this issue from our clients and industry partners, we felt it necessary to further address the reasoning behind the court’s ruling in Grossman.

In Grossman, a dispute between a homeowners association (“HOA”) and a homeowner relating to a claimed architectural violation was resolved by the trial court in favor of the homeowners. In awarding the homeowners attorney’s fees and costs arising from both pre and post-litigation activities, the trial court cited Civil Code Section 1354(c), which states that “[i]n an action to enforce the governing documents, the prevailing party shall be awarded reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.” (Emphasis added.)

The HOA objected to the award based on its argument that the statute did not authorize awarding pre-litigation attorney’s fees (fees incurred in participating in ADR) because such fees were not incurred as part of the action (the lawsuit) to enforce the governing documents. However, the appellate court disagreed with the HOA and ultimately affirmed the ruling, noting several key points…

Are Attorney’s Fees for ADR Recoverable?

Published on: February 25, 2013 | by Steven J. Tinnelly, Esq.

*Asked & Answered ADR california hoa law litigation.jpg

Asked – Are our HOA’s attorney’s fees recoverable when we participate in ADR with a homeowner?

Answered – Maybe. Civil Code §1354(c) states that “in an action to enforce the governing documents, the prevailing party shall be awarded reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.” Alternative Dispute Resolution (“ADR”) does not technically constitute an “action” as contemplated by Civil Code §1354(c). When a homeowners association (“HOA”) and a homeowner agree to participate in ADR, Civil Code §1369.540(c) states that “the costs of [ADR] shall be borne by the parties.” Accordingly, each side pays its own attorney’s fees, and the mediation fees/costs are split between the parties unless the parties negotiate a different arrangement.

However, if the ADR results in a settlement of the dispute, then the attorney’s fees are allocated according to the settlement terms. If the ADR does not result in a settlement and a lawsuit ensues, then the “prevailing party” in the resulting lawsuit may recover its pre-litigation attorney’s fees incurred for ADR. In the recent case of Grossman v. Park Fort Washington Association (2012) 212 Cal. App. 4th 1128, the prevailing party (the homeowners) were awarded their attorneys’ fees incurred in pre-litigation ADR:

“…[B]ecause the Legislature has required ADR, a party acts reasonably when it spends money on attorney fees and costs during pre-litigation ADR. The alternate view–that such expenditures are categorically unreasonable–is contrary to the strong public policy of promoting the resolution of disputes through mediation and arbitration…Thus, when attorney fees and costs expended in pre-litigation ADR satisfy the other criteria of reasonableness, those fees and costs may be recovered in an action to enforce the governing documents of a common interest development.” Grossman.

Attorney’s fees incurred in ADR are typically not recoverable absent language to that effect in the terms of the ADR settlement. However, if no settlement is reached and a lawsuit ensues, the public policy factors recognized by the court in Grossman suggest that these attorney’s fees should be recovered by the prevailing party (e.g., the HOA) in the lawsuit.

Content provided by Tinnelly Law Group attorney Bruce Kermott

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

HOA Parking Rules Versus Handicap Parking Placards?

Published on: October 30, 2012 | by Steven J. Tinnelly, Esq.

*Asked & Answered hoa law firm

Asked – My HOA requires a parking decal to park in the community. Is my HOA allowed to enforce its parking rules on vehicles with handicap parking placards that are parked within designated parking areas, but are without the HOA required parking decal?

Answered – Yes. Typically, homeowners association (“HOA”) governing documents (e.g., “CC&Rs,” “Rules & Regulations”) contain provisions governing how vehicles may be parked in the common area streets or parking spaces. In the event that a parking violation occurs, the HOA has the authority to enforce disciplinary measures against the violating individuals in accordance with the applicable enforcement procedures set forth in the HOA’s governing documents. Although California Vehicle Code §22511.5 permits individuals with appropriate handicap placards to park in handicap spaces, those individuals must still comply with all other HOA parking rules. Individuals generally may not, therefore, circumvent the requirements of an HOA’s parking rules through the use of handicap placards or plates.

Upon receiving a proper request, a HOA may be required to make “reasonable accommodations” for disabled individuals by designating additional parking spaces as handicap parking spaces. If your HOA has received such a request, the issue should be directed to your HOA’s legal counsel for guidance.

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

HOA Prohibiting Single Owners from Renting Out Multiple Units?

Published on: July 23, 2012 | by Steven J. Tinnelly, Esq.

*Asked & Answered

Asked – Can the Board amend the HOA’s CC&Rs to limit a homeowner who owns multiple units from renting more than one unit unless they live within the HOA?

Answered – Yes. Provided that the requisite procedures are followed and membership approval is obtained, the Board of Directors does have the authority to amend your HOA’s CC&Rs to include such a rental prohibition. However, because the amendment serves to effectively prohibit a homeowner’s ability to rent out a unit (as compared to a less-severe, reasonable restriction on rentals), the California Civil Code limits the degree to which current homeowners would be bound by the prohibition.

Senate Bill 150 added Section 1360.2 to the California Civil Code to insulate certain homeowners from any “provision in a governing document or an amendment to a governing document that prohibits the rental or leasing of any of the separate interests” that was adopted by the HOA on or after January 1, 2012. The only homeowners who may be bound by such rental prohibitions are those who bought their homes after the prohibition had already been adopted and in effect, as well as those who consent to being bound by it.

In your situation, an interesting question becomes how would the Civil Code treat enforcement of such a prohibition against a particular homeowner who owned one unit within the HOA before the prohibition was adopted (“Unit A”), and then later, after the prohibition is adopted, purchases another unit in the HOA (“Unit B”)? The language of Section 1360.2 seems to suggest that the rental prohibition would indeed be valid and enforceable against Unit B. However, a thorough assessment of the facts at issue as they relate to the legislative intent behind Section 1360.2 would be necessary to make a more complete determination.

If your Homeowners Association is contemplating the adoption of a new provision to restrict or prohibit rentals, careful consideration must be given to how the Civil Code’s limitations will impact the enforcement of the new provision and whether those limitations will frustrate the homeowners’ goals in adopting it. Consulting with your Homeowners Association attorney will assist in crafting a provision that serves the interests of the homeowners while also preventing costly legal challenges to its enforcement.

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

Fining Homeowners for not Completing HOA Surveys?

Published on: July 13, 2012 | by Steven J. Tinnelly, Esq.

*Asked & Answered california hoa lawyers

Asked – May our HOA impose fines on homeowners who fail to complete HOA surveys?

Answered – Probably not. In general, a homeowners association (HOA) does have the authority to impose reasonable fines to deter violations of the HOA’s governing documents, as well as any rules and regulations validly adopted by the HOA’s Board of Directors. Liebler v. Point Loma Tennis Club (1995). Even assuming that the survey requirement itself is a reasonable, valid rule adopted by your HOA Board in accordance with the requirements contained in its governing documents and Civil Code §1357.110, fining homeowners for failing to complete the survey is likely to be deemed an unreasonable exercise of the HOA’s authority.

The HOA’s authority to impose fines is premised upon (1) deterring behavior which may damage the interests of the HOA and its members, or (2) reimbursing the HOA for costs it will incur as a result of violations. A homeowner’s failure to complete an informational survey will rarely, if ever, implicate such concerns.

The imposition of disciplinary measures such as fines is often crucial to the success of a HOA’s enforcement efforts. However, the authority to impose fines is not absolute–HOA Boards must comply with the procedural requirements set forth both in their governing documents and the California Civil Code, and furthermore must ensure that the fines at issue are justifiable and reasonable under the circumstances.

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

Committees: Delegating Board Authority to Achieve Efficiency

Published on: June 13, 2012 | by Steven J. Tinnelly, Esq.

hoa attorney *New Resource

The 2012 amendments to the “Common Interest Development Open Meeting Act” have made it significantly more difficult for Boards to manage the affairs of their HOAs in a quick and efficient manner. Those amendments, as discussed in our previous resource,”Senate Bill 563: Boards and their Business,” made significant changes to the Civil Code, including, (1) revisions to the definition of meeting to include executive session meetings, (2) the inclusion of a new “No Action Without a Meeting” rule, (3) the implementation of a rule prohibiting Boards from considering items of business not noticed on a meeting agenda, and (4) a prohibition on meetings conducted or actions taken through email. As any Board Member or Manager knows, these changes have not only deprived Associations of many of the tools previously used to conduct business outside of regularly held Board meetings, but have also obstructed the channels and methods of communication that are necessary to effectively assign responsibilities and make ongoing mid-project decisions. Although HOAs are unfortunately bound to abide by these requirements, there are devices available to the Board that can significantly decrease the burdens these requirements impose. This blogpost discusses the use of one such device–the committee–and the various ways in which it may be used by Boards to address HOA business within the constraints imposed by the Civil Code.

Our HOA lawyers have also published this information in our new resource entitled “Committees: Delegating Authority to Achieve Efficiency,” available for download from our library.

HOA Obligation to Combat Nuisances?

Published on: April 18, 2012 | by Steven J. Tinnelly, Esq.

*Asked & Answered hoa attorney

Asked – In response to a complaint by a homeowner that her noisy neighbor is causing a nuisance, is her homeowners association obligated to take legal action to remedy the problem?

Answered – Maybe. A homeowners association’s (HOA’s) governing documents often contain use restrictions which prohibit homeowners from conducting activities that unreasonably interfere with other homeowners’ use and enjoyment of their units. However, HOA Boards are granted discretion in determining whether they should take legal action in enforcing such use restrictions. A nuisance which is minor (e.g., only impacts one homeowner) may not ultimately justify the expense the HOA will incur in taking action to remedy the problem. However, a more significant nuisance which impacts multiple homeowners (e.g., constantly throwing loud parties) is likely a situation where the HOA should step in.

That is not to say that an individual homeowner suffering from a minor nuisance is without recourse. HOA governing documents typically contain provisions which permit homeowners to take action themselves to enforce the governing documents. Additionally, unless the governing documents state otherwise, that right is also codified at Civil Code § 1354(a).

Homeowners suffering from nuisances should attend Board meetings to present their case to the Board. While the Board has discretion in determining the propriety of legal action, the homeowner can suggest that the Board employ less serious enforcement measures such as violation notices, imposing fines or suspension of privileges.

To submit HOA law questions to Tinnelly Law Group, click here.