HOA Governance

Challenges to HOA Elections: Facts and Consequences

Published on: April 3, 2012 | by Steven J. Tinnelly, Esq.

homeowners association law.jpg *New Resource

Electing a Board of Directors to manage the Association is a complex and time consuming process. Despite the best of intentions, sometimes things slip through the cracks, whether it’s the qualifications of someone on the ballot or the manner in which votes are collected and tallied. When this occurs, the appointment of a specific director or the election as a whole can be challenged by a member. This blog post discusses the basics of such a challenge, including who has standing to bring a challenge, when a challenge can be brought, and how such a challenge can affect the Association.

Our HOA lawyers have also published this information in our new resource entitled “Challenges to Association Elections: Facts and Consequences”, available for download from our library.

Challenges to a Board Member’s Qualifications After Election?

Published on: March 26, 2012 | by Steven J. Tinnelly, Esq.

*Asked & Answered hoa-election

Asked – May a homeowner challenge the qualifications of a member to serve on the HOA’s Board of Directors after they have been elected?

Answered – Maybe, depending on the date of the challenge. Corp. Code §7527 provides that “an action challenging the validity of any election, appointment or removal of a director or directors must be commenced within nine months after the election, appointment or removal. If no such action is commenced, in the absence of fraud, any election, appointment or removal of a director is conclusively presumed valid nine months thereafter.” The election will thus be deemed valid unless the challenge is brought within nine (9) months after the election.

However, there is a slight conflict in the law with respect to election challenges. Civil Code §1363.09(a) provides a one (1) year period to bring civil actions for declaratory or equitable relief relating to violations of the election and voting procedures set forth in that article. Accordingly, the law is slightly inconsistent with respect to the exact period in which such challenges may be brought.

HOAs can be significantly impacted by actions taken under the direction of an unqualified Board Member. Surprisingly, most original governing documents do not contain any specific qualifications for a member to serve on their HOA’s Board. Many HOAs therefore opt to amend their Bylaws to establish reasonable qualifications for Board Members (e.g., membership in the association, good standing with regard to assessment payments, etc.). Adoption and enforcement of Board Member qualifications assist in ensuring that the best possible members are entrusted with managing the HOA’s affairs.

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

Content provided by Kai MacDonald, Esq. – HOA attorney with Tinnelly Law Group.

Surveillance Cameras Within Your Association

Published on: January 26, 2012 | by Steven J. Tinnelly, Esq.

*New Resource

Video surveillance cameras are now being installed almost everywhere, so why not in your homeowners association (HOA)? When used properly surveillance cameras can provide additional security, a greater sense of safety and a deterrent to would be criminals. Yet several questions and considerations are often raised with respect to the installation of surveillance cameras within a HOA.

Does it violate the law for a HOA to install surveillance cameras within the community? Are these cameras helpful in reducing criminal activity? Is it acceptable to use “dummy” cameras instead of operative cameras? Does a HOA have to post signs notifying the homeowners that they are under video surveillance? These are some of the questions that HOAs are asking legal counsel as their Boards consider installing surveillance cameras to monitor entry gates, parking facilities and other common areas.

This blog post will address some of these questions while providing your HOA and management personnel with some guidance in this area. This information can also be found in our new resource entitled “Surveillance Cameras within your Association”, available for download from our library.

HOA Communications with Homeowners: Methods of Delivery?

Published on: January 16, 2012 | by Steven J. Tinnelly, Esq.

*Asked & Answered hoa law mailbox

Asked – Is it true that the law requires an Association to send notifications and communications to the homeowners via USPS only?

Answered – No. An Association’s governing documents may require that certain types of communications with homeowners be sent via USPS. However, in the event that no such requirements are contained in an Association’s governing documents, the California Civil Code may still require USPS for certain communications. One example would be a Notice of Lien, where an “[A]ssociation must notify the owner by certified mail.” Civil Code § 1367.1(a).

However, the homeowner can also consent to receive certain communications by other means besides USPS, such as electronic mail. An example is the Association’s Annual Update of Reserve Study, which may be delivered by “E-Mail, facsimile, or other electronic means, if the recipient has agreed to that method of delivery.” Civil Code §§ 1350.7(b)(3), 1363.005.

Be sure to review your Association’s governing documents to determine what provisions, if any, govern how notifications and communications are made between the Association and the homeowners. If the governing documents seem to be ambiguous, consult your Association’s legal counsel.

To submit questions to Tinnelly Law Group, click here.

Imposing Fees on HOA Members who Rent out their Homes?

Published on: December 5, 2011 | by Steven J. Tinnelly, Esq.

The additional burdens that renters impose can be substantial for many common interest developments–especially those developments designed as “recreational communities.” Renters who lack a sense of investment in the community or who are unfamiliar with its operational structure can place greater strain on the community’s management and maintenance resources. This may not only frustrate other owners within the community, but may also significantly impact the financial health of the Homeowners Association (“HOA”) formed to preserve and protect it.

We have written about how HOAs adopt and enforce rental restrictions as a means to alleviate some of the problems posed by renters. We have also published a resource explaining how new legislation taking effect January 1, 2012 will limit a HOA’s ability to restrict rentals in certain circumstances. However, in addition to imposing rental restrictions where possible, can a HOA impose a fee on owners who wish to rent out their homes? In the recent, unpublished decision of Watts v. Oak Shores Community Association, the answer may be yes.

2012 Legislative & Case Law Update Now Available

Published on: November 28, 2011 | by Steven J. Tinnelly, Esq.

Our “2012 Legislative & Case Law Update” newsletter is now available in our library!

The 2012 Legislative & Case Law Update provides an overview of the new legislation impacting California Homeowners Associations (“HOAs”) and the community association industry professionals who service them. The new legislation includes, among other things, bills that impose new requirements on Board Member meetings and new limitations on HOAs that wish to restrict rentals in their communities.

The 2012 Legislative & Case Law Update also provides an overview of some important new case law, along with some links to additional resources we have published on the items discussed therein.

Click here to read our 2012 Legislative & Case Law Update

Have questions on any of the new legislation or case law? Click here to send us a question online.

Granting Exclusive Use of Common Area: Approval Required?

Published on: November 15, 2011 | by Steven J. Tinnelly, Esq.

*Asked & Answered

Asked – Our Board wants to grant homeowners exclusive use of our Association’s common area storage closets and also charge a fee to such homeowners wanting exclusive use. May they do this without membership approval?

Answered – Probably not. Civil Code § 1363.07 substantially restricts an Association’s ability to grant exclusive use of common area. Provided that your Association’s governing documents do not state otherwise, granting exclusive use of any portion of the Association’s common area requires approval by 2/3 (67%) of the membership. There are a few narrow exceptions to this requirement; however, none of the exceptions provided in Civil Code § 1363.07 likely apply to your situation.

An Association is permitted to receive monetary compensation in exchange for granting exclusive use of Association common area. Civil Code § 1363.07 requires disclosure of such compensation when the issue is presented to the membership for a vote.

Be sure to review your Association’s governing documents to determine what provisions, if any, govern the use rights of common areas and exclusive use common areas within your Association. If the Board does not have the authority under the governing documents, or does not have the requisite approval under the Civil Code, to grant exclusive use of Association common area, homeowners may bring an action in court to reverse the grant.

To submit questions to Tinnelly Law Group, click here.

Electric Vehicle Charging Stations in Your Community?

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

In July of this year, Governor Brown signed Senate Bill 209 (“SB 209”) into law. As a result, beginning January 1, 2012, Section 1353.9 will be added to the California Civil Code to restrict an association’s ability to prohibit the installation of Electric Vehicle (“EV”) charging stations (“Stations”). You may have heard of this new law but, like many of our clients and industry partners, wonder what it means for associations and their members. How will the new law ultimately function? Who pays the cost to run the electricity? Must associations permit the installation of Stations on association property? This post discusses the components and criticisms of SB 209 and in doing so addresses some of the questions which have been raised in the wake of its signing.

Imposing Fines for Member Discipline: How Many Notices are Required?

Published on: October 12, 2011 | by Steven J. Tinnelly, Esq.

*Asked & Answered

Asked – How many notices do you need to give a unit owner about a rule violation before they are called to a hearing and fined?

Answered – Associations generally must provide their members with “due process” before they are able to impose disciplinary measures, such as fines, for rule violations. This due process requirement is meant to ensure that the Association’s enforcement procedures are both fair and reasonable. Two central elements of due process are (1) providing the accused notice of her alleged violation and (2) providing the accused a reasonable opportunity to be heard and to defend herself. Applebaum v. Board of Directors (1980). Notices and hearings for Association rule violations are in furtherance of the due process requirement.

Before conducting a hearing to determine whether a fine should be imposed, the Board must “notify the member in writing, by either personal delivery or first-class mail, at least 10 days prior to the [hearing].” Cal. Civ. Code Sec. 1363(h). Assuming that your Association’s governing documents do not contain a more stringent notice requirement or that your Association does not have an enforcement policy which states otherwise, this is the only violation notice required before a member may be called to a hearing and fined. This notice, however, must contain all of the information required by Civil Code Section 1363(h) (the date, time, and place of the hearing, the nature of the alleged violation, etc.). Please note that Associations are also required to annually provide their members with notice of the Association’s enforcement procedures, including its schedule of fines. Cal. Civ. Code Sec. 1363(g).

Though the Civil Code only requires that one notice of violation be given to a member before they may be called to a hearing and fined, it is a better practice for an Association to provide its members with more advanced notice and a reasonable time period (i.e., 30 days) to voluntarily correct the violation before being called to a hearing. Such a practice helps to (1) secure the cooperation of members and (2) demonstrate that the Association is acting both fairly and reasonably in enforcing its rules and restrictions.

To submit questions to Tinnelly Law Group, click here.

New Legislation Impacts Homeowners Association Board Meetings

Published on: September 20, 2011 | by Steven J. Tinnelly, Esq.

*New Resource

When Senate Bill 563 (“SB 563”) was signed into law this month, the fears of many people within the Community Association industry came true. The new legislation purports to provide better homeowner awareness of the affairs of their respective Associations and the ways in which those affairs are being managed by their elected Boards of Directors. However, many industry professionals and Board members are concerned that the new legislation will restrict a Board’s ability to take the actions required to efficiently address the day-to-day issues that arise within their communities.

SB 563 amends several sections of the California Civil Code–most notably Section 1363.05, known as the “Common Interest Development Open Meeting Act.” The amendments include new restrictions on actions without a meeting and what matters may be considered at a meeting. The amendments also provide new requirements with respect to meetings held in executive session as well as requirements for meetings held electronically or by teleconference.

In response to requests made by our clients and industry partners, we have published a new resource on SB 563 which outlines these new restrictions and requirements. The resource, entitled “Senate Bill 563: Boards and their Business”, is available for download from our library.