HOA Governance

The California Air Resources Board Has Established Regulations Regarding Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles that Directly Impact Homeowners Associations

Published on: January 9, 2017 | by Steven J. Tinnelly, Esq.

street-sweeper The California Air Resources Board (“ARB”) passed a regulation (“Regulation”) that requires diesel trucks and buses that operate in California to be upgraded to reduce emissions. The Regulation has a direct impact on HOAs and requires them to take steps to verify that certain vehicles they hire are properly certified with the State. The Regulation requires lighter and older heavier trucks to be replaced starting January 1, 2015. By January 1, 2023, nearly all trucks and buses will need to have 2010 model year engines or equivalent.

The Regulation requires that any party (including HOAs, board members, and managing agents) that hires or directs the operation of any vehicle subject to the Regulation, must verify that each hired company is either in compliance with the regulation or has reported compliance to the ARB. The Regulation does not apply where the party does not hire or direct the operation of any vehicle subject to the Regulation. The types of vehicles that an HOA or its managing agent may encounter include but are not limited to the following: street sweepers, dump trucks, pumper trucks, crane trucks, charter buses, lift trucks, concrete pump trucks, and tow trucks.

FHA Proposes New Rule for Condominium Certification & Lowers Owner-Occupancy Requirement

Published on: November 22, 2016 | by Steven J. Tinnelly, Esq.

first-time-homebuyer We previously blogged about H.R. 3700, the “Housing Opportunity Through Modernization Act of 2016”, which was signed by the President on July 29, 2016. H.R. 3700 required the Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) to streamline the Federal Housing Administration (“FHA”) recertification process, provide regulations for commercial space exemptions, allow for deed-based transfer fees, and lower the owner-occupancy requirement within ninety (90) days of the bill’s approval. In response to these provisions and changes in the condominium market, HUD proposed a new rule governing the certification requirements for condominium associations. The proposed rule includes the following reforms:

Business Judgment Rule Does Not Protect the Willfully Ignorant

Published on: August 17, 2016 | by Steven J. Tinnelly, Esq.

*New Case Law Business Judgment Rule HOA

Volunteer homeowners association (“HOA”) directors are fiduciaries who are held to high standards of conduct when making decisions or taking actions on behalf of the communities they represent. Sometimes those decisions, which may seem reasonable at the time, ultimately lead to problems for the HOA or its members. If volunteer HOA directors were made personally liable for the consequences of their erroneous decisions, it would be virtually impossible for any HOA to recruit individuals to serve on its board. For this reason, HOA directors are afforded several liability protections under California law. One of those protections is a legal doctrine known as the “Business Judgment Rule.”

The Business Judgment Rule generally shields directors from personal liability that may result from their erroneous decisions, provided that the decision was made (1) with care, (2) in good faith, and (3) was based upon what the director believed to be in the best interest of the HOA. Making a decision “with care” generally requires that directors exercise reasonable diligence to investigate the issues surrounding the decision so that they are able to act on an informed basis.

But how broad are the protections of the Business Judgment Rule? Does it automatically shield a director who chooses to remain willfully ignorant as to the issues surrounding her actions or the scope of her authority? According to the Court of Appeal in the recent case of Palm Springs Villas II Homeowners Association v. Parth (2016) 248 Cal.App.4th 268, that answer appears to be no… Continue Reading ›

Associations Could Be Held Liable for the Employees of Independent Contractors

Published on: June 22, 2016 | by Steven J. Tinnelly, Esq.

Labor-Unions-Preventive-Practices-1024x683 On August 27, 2015, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) published its decision in the Browning-Ferris Industries of California, Inc. case (“BFI Case”). In that case, Browning-Ferris Industries of California, Inc. (“BFI”) retained the services of Leadpoint Business Services (“LBS”) to provide staff to one of BFI’s recycling facilities. The contract between BFI and LBS recognized, and the parties understood, that the personnel staffed by LBS were the employees of LBS. Nevertheless, given the fact that the contract granted BFI with some control over the employees of LBS, the NLRB concluded that BFI was a joint-employer of LBS thereby obligating BFI to comply with federal labor laws.

In adopting a new legal standard for determining joint-employer status, the NLRB emphasized that such a determination should not be based solely on actual control over the employees of another, but the “existence, extent, and object of the putative joint employer’s control.” (Browning-Ferris Industries of California, Inc. (2015) 2015 NLRB No. 672, *12 (Emphasis added).) Otherwise, employers would be able to insulate themselves from their responsibility to comply with federal labor laws. (Id. at p. *21) Accordingly, as long as a company retains (e.g., through the execution of a contract) the authority to control the employees of another, said company shall be given joint employer status. (Id. at p. *2.) This is true even if control is exercised indirectly (e.g., through an intermediary). (Id.)

Many associations retain a community management firm for the purpose of executing the duties of the association. These community management firms in turn employ community managers and support staff to manage these associations. While historically recognized as the employee of the community management firm (and an independent contractor of the association), the BFI Case raises some questions with respect to the nature of the relationship between the employees of a community management firm and the association. Accordingly, associations must be cognizant that a Court may find that it is a joint employer of the community manager (and support staff), notwithstanding the fact that it exercises no direct and immediate control over said manager.

Similarly, associations and management companies must take care when hiring maintenance and service providers for the community. When managers, committee members, or board members are conducting job walks with a contractor’s employee, reviewing specifications, or receiving invoices, the management company and the association may become joint employers. In Heiman v. Worker’s Compensation Appeals Board, Cal: Court of Appeal, 2nd Appellate Dist., 3rd Div. 2007 (“Heiman”), a community association manager hired an unlicensed and uninsured contractor on behalf of the association to install rain gutters on the condominium buildings. An employee of the contractor was seriously injured on the first day of the project and sued the contractor, management company, and association for workers’ compensation. The Court held that the contractor, the association, and the management company were all joint employers because the contractor hired the injured employee, and the management company, as agent of the association, hired the contractor. The BFI Case seems to affirm this decision.

In order to insulate the association from a possible finding of joint-employer status, the association should ensure that its contract with independent contractors, requires all proper licenses and insurance, adequately sets forth the desired results, and sets forth the level of care and skill to be used in accomplishing the desired results. (See Id. at p. 12 (“mere ‘service under an agreement to accomplish results or to use care and skill in accomplishing results’ is not evidence of an employment, or joint-employment relationship”).) The agreement should also include a provision that requires the contractor to indemnify and hold the association harmless in the event a labor dispute arises.

Blog post authored by TLG attorney, Matthew T. Plaxton.

Homeowner Attorneys at your HOA’s Board Meetings? This Could Become the New Normal

Published on: January 29, 2016 | by Steven J. Tinnelly, Esq.

lawyer-hoa-attorney-meeting

Civil Code Section 4925 grants to each member of a homeowners association (“HOA”) the right to attend HOA board meetings (except for executive session meetings). Section 4925 also grants members with rights to speak at board meetings and to address the board during open forum. However, these rights are explicitly granted to the HOA’s “members” (the owners of lots or units within the HOA’s development), not to a member’s agent or attorney. The California Court of Appeal addressed this issue in the 2013 case of SB Liberty, LLC v. Isla Verde Assn. Inc., where it affirmed a HOA’s ability to prohibit a member’s attorney from attending a board meeting on the member’s behalf.

However, Assembly Bill 1720 (“AB 1720”) was just proposed by the California Legislature in order to change this structure by amending parts of Section 4925. If signed into law, AB 1720 will add new subpart (c) to Section 4925 to state:

“The board shall permit an attorney who represents a member to attend any board meeting that the member is permitted to attend, regardless of whether the member attends. Where possible, the member shall give the board at least 48 hours advance written notice that his or her attorney will attend the board meeting.”

AB 1720 follows in the same vein as legislation which became effective January 1, 2015. That legislation (AB 1738) was enacted to grant a HOA member the right to be assisted by an attorney when the member is participating in Internal Dispute Resolution (IDR) with a member of the board.

AB 1720 could be problematic for HOAs by placing boards in a position of having their meetings observed or disrupted by the attorney of a member whom is, or is likely to become, involved in a dispute with the HOA. Such a situation will likely have a chilling effect on the discussions and actions taken at a board meeting where a member’s attorney is present, especially if the HOA’s attorney is not present. While AB 1720’s language currently requires the member to, “where possible,” give the board at least 48 hours written notice that his/her attorney will attend the board meeting, it does not clearly specify whether the attorney must be allowed to attend regardless of whether the member actually provides such notice. Moreover, this notice requirement is presumably intended to provide the HOA with enough time to arrange for its attorney to attend the meeting as well. A mere forty eight (48) hours notice may not be sufficient in this respect. If anything, members should be required to comply with the same timeline currently imposed upon the HOA when it provides notice of board meetings to its members: four (4) days. We will continue to track AB 1720 as it makes its way through the legislature.

‘Substantial Compliance Test’ Possibly Applicable to Open Meeting Act Requirements

Published on: January 5, 2016 | by Steven J. Tinnelly, Esq.

*New Case Law hoa-meeting-agenda

HOA board meetings are governed by the “Common Interest Development Open Meeting Act” (“Open Meeting Act”)(Civil Code Sections 4900 through 4955). The Open Meeting Act is designed to bring a sense of transparency to HOA governance, and is similar in purpose to California’s “Brown Act” (Government Code Section 54950 et seq.) which guarantees the public’s right to attend and participate in public meetings of local legislative bodies (i.e. City Council Meetings). Both the Open Meeting Act and the Brown Act include, among other procedural requirements, language regarding the notice that must be provided in advance of HOA/legislative body meetings, respectively.

In June 2015, the California Court of Appeal rendered an opinion which addressed a notice requirement under the Brown Act. In Castaic Lake Water Agency v. Newhall County Water District, et al, Castaic Lake Water Agency (“Castaic”) moved the trial court to declare void an action taken at a public meeting because the related agenda identified an incorrect Government Code section as the basis for the scheduled action to be taken at that meeting. In dismissing Castaic’s action, the Court held that substantial compliance with the Brown Act is the governing test, and that the notice given by Newhall Water District in the agenda was sufficient to inform the public of the purpose of the meeting.

The holding in Castaic applies only to public meetings of local legislative bodies, and therefore is not directly applicable to common interest developments and HOAs. However, that decision could be persuasive in a factually similar HOA context. If an action taken at a HOA Board Meeting is challenged because the agenda incorrectly cites to a provision that does not accurately identify the basis of the Board’s authority to discuss/take such action, the ‘substantial compliance’ test may be considered to rebuff that challenge. Specifically, a HOA could argue that the agenda substantially complied with the Open Meeting Act and was therefore sufficient with respect to informing the membership of the purpose contemplated by the referenced action item set forth in the agenda.

Blog post authored by TLG Attorney, Kumar Raja.

Modifying Enforcement Policies; Avoiding Claims of ‘Selective Enforcement’

Published on: July 6, 2015 | by Steven J. Tinnelly, Esq.

hoa-pet-restriction One problem that arises in the context of enforcing homeowners association (“HOA”) governing documents pertains to how consistently certain use restrictions in the governing documents are enforced over time. For example, if a HOA has historically failed to enforce a particular restriction, a decision to enforce that restriction against a particular owner may subject the HOA to claims of “selective enforcement” and/or that the HOA’s enforcements efforts are being exercised in an arbitrary and capricious fashion. These claims not only hinder the cost-efficient resolution of disputes, but could significantly undermine the HOA’s enforcement authority.

It is therefore difficult for a HOA’s Board of Directors to modify the HOA’s enforcement policies over time, especially when it desires to enforce a use restriction that was either never enforced or enforced inconsistently by the HOA in the past. However, the recent unpublished opinion in The Villas in Whispering Palms v. Tempkin (Cal. App. 2015) 2015 WL 2395151 (“Villas”) demonstrates that this difficulty may be overcome through providing proper notice to the HOA’s members and through enforcing the restriction consistently thereafter…

AB 2430 Signed: HOA Transfer Disclosure Docs; Seller Paid Fees

Published on: January 12, 2015 | by Steven J. Tinnelly, Esq.

*New Legislation

Civil Code Section 4530 sets forth the responsibility of homeowners associations (“HOAs”) to provide copies of governing documents, financial disclosures and other documents to a homeowner (or a homeowner’s authorized agent) within ten (10) days of a receipt of a request for those documents. This applies in the context of a sale of a property (a unit or lot) within a HOA. The documents to be produced are identified in Civil Code Section 4525, and are commonly known as “Transfer Disclosure Documents.”

Section 4530 does provide a HOA with the right to “collect a reasonable fee” based upon its efforts in producing, preparing and delivering Transfer Disclosure Documents. However, in satisfying this request and in seeking reimbursement, disputes would sometime arise as to whom should pay the fee (i.e., should it be the seller of the property or the prospective purchaser).

Fortunately, AB 2430 (Maienschein), effective January 1, 2015, has amended Section 4530 to specify the seller’s obligation to compensate the HOA for the aforementioned fee. Other notable changes in the law that will result from AB 2430 include:

The HOA must provide an estimate of the fees that will be assessed in producing the Transfer Disclosure Documents, prior to producing them.
The fees must be “separately stated” and “separately billed” from all other fees, fines or assessments that are billed as part of the transaction.
The Transfer Disclosure Documents may not be bundled with any other documents.
If the seller is in possession of any Transfer Disclosure Documents, the seller is required to provide copies to the prospective purchaser at no cost.
The form used for estimating the fees, as described in Civil Code Section 4528, is amended to include the following within the rightmost column of the form: “Not Available (N/A), Not Applicable (N/App), or Directly Provided by Seller and confirmed in writing by Seller as current document (DP).”

AB 2430’s primary benefit is in clarifying the party responsible for a HOA’s costs in producing the Transfer Disclosure Documents (the seller). This should prevent needless billing disputes that hinder property transfers within HOAs. However, HOA Boards and especially management professionals should recognize the need to provide the estimate of fees via the Section 4528 form before producing the Transfer Disclosure Documents, and that failing to do so may inhibit the HOA’s ability to ultimately recovery them.

Are You Prepared for the New Annual Disclosures?

Published on: September 19, 2014 | by Steven J. Tinnelly, Esq.

For many associations with a December year end, September marks the first opportunity for the board of directors to review the first draft of the budget and disclosures materials. As of January 1, 2014, changes to the Davis-Stirling Act now require that budget documents and disclosures be distributed in the form of the Annual Budget Report and the Annual Policy Statement.

Civil Code §5300 requires the Annual Budget Report (“Report”) be distributed to the membership 30-90 days prior to the fiscal year end. Unless the governing documents provide for more stringent standards, the Report must now include the following documents:
Continue Reading ›

Inspection and Copying of Association Records

Published on: July 1, 2014 | by Steven J. Tinnelly, Esq.

*New Library Article

There are numerous records and items of information maintained and generated by a homeowners association (“HOA”) in the course of its operations. It is common for a HOA member to request copies of such records and information, especially in connection with an ongoing dispute the member may have with the HOA. Upon receipt of such a request, HOA boards and management professionals often have questions concerning the scope of the HOA’s responsibilities in responding to the request and in ultimately providing the member with the requested records and information.

The California Civil Code contains several provisions governing (1) the degree to which a HOA member is entitled to inspect and to copy certain “association records,” (2) the degree to which certain association records are not subject to inspection or copying by a member, and (3) the process through which the HOA must produce or provide access to its records in response to a member’s request. This blog post provides an overview of these provisions, as well as some general guidance for HOA boards and management professionals on this issue.

*Note: Our attorneys have also published this information in a new article entitled “Inspection and Copying of Association Records” that is available for download from our Web site’s library.