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

Articles Posted in Meetings

AB 648 Signed! Virtual HOA Meetings

Published on: October 5, 2023 | by Steven J. Tinnelly, Esq.

*New Legislation

On September 22, 2023, Governor Newsom signed AB 648 into law to finally permit homeowners associations (“HOAs”) throughout California to conduct board meetings entirely be teleconference (aka “virtual meetings“). While existing law permits an HOA to conduct teleconference meetings, HOAs are still required to specify a “physical location” for the meeting at which members or directors may physically attend the meeting if they desired to do so. The only exceptions to this physical location requirement are if the meeting is held in solely in executive session, or if the meeting is held during a government declared state of emergency under Civil Code section 5450.

Effective January 1, 2024, AB 648 will add another exception to the physical location requirement by adding new Civil Code section 4926 to the Davis-Stirling Act. AB 648’s enactment is based upon the Legislature’s findings that:

“Virtual homeowner association meetings improve and enhance homeowner members’ ability to participate and comment on business-related matters of the association and their community” and “enable greater access for all members of the association.”

Under Section 4926, an HOA will be permitted to conduct its open board meetings entirely by teleconference (without a physical location), provided that all the following requirements are satisfied:

Notice Requirements – The notice for each meeting conducted under Section 4926 must include, in addition to other required content for meeting notices, all the following:

1. 1. Clear technical instructions on how to participate by teleconference;
  2. The telephone number and e-mail address of a person who can provide technical assistance with the teleconference process, both before and during the meeting; and
  3. A reminder that a member may request individual delivery of meeting notices, with instructions how to do so.

Equal Participation Requirement – Every director and member must have the same ability to participate in the meeting that would exist if the meeting were held in person.

Roll Call Vote Requirement –Any vote of the directors at a Section 4926 meeting must be conducted by a roll call vote.

Option to Participate by Telephone Requirement – Any vote of the directors at a Section 4926 meeting must be conducted by a roll call vote.

It is important to note that AB 648 did not have any impact on existing law governing HOA meetings at which ballots are counted and tabulated pursuant to Civil Code section 5120. If an HOA wants to conduct a ballot counting meeting via teleconference, it must still specify a physical location as discussed above.

AB 648’s passage is welcome news to HOA board members and industry professionals that appreciate the convenience and efficiencies of conducting board meetings entirely by teleconference, utilizing popular tools such as Zoom and Go2Meeting.

Email Discussions Between HOA Board Members are not “Meetings”

Published on: September 18, 2023 | by Steven J. Tinnelly, Esq. and Ellie Ghahari

*New Case Law

The Open Meeting Act (“OMA”) contains various provisions regulating how the board of directors of a homeowners association (“HOA”) may meet and conduct business. One of the most common questions we receive pertains to whether email exchanges between board members on items of HOA business constitute a “board meeting” under the OMA, even if those emails are merely for discussion purposes without any vote (or “action”) being taken on the item.

Fortunately, we finally have an answer to this question from the California Court of Appeals via its ruling in LSNU #1, LLC v. Alta Del Mar Coastal Collection Community Association (“Alta Del Mar”) that will have a significant, immediate and beneficial impact on HOA governance throughout California. That answer is no. Email exchanges/communications between HOA board members that merely discuss items of HOA business are not within the statutory definition of a “board meeting” under the OMA and are therefore lawful.

In Alta Del Mar, the HOA board was discussing, over email, two items of business that are relatively routine for HOAs: whether to approve a homeowner’s landscaping plans and whether to fine another homeowner. The plaintiff homeowner in Alta Del Mar claimed that this email discussion was considered a board meeting and thus violated the OMA by not affording the homeowner notice and an opportunity to be heard.

The Court rejected this argument with reference to two central provisions of the OMA upon which the homeowner relied in making their argument: Civil Code section 4090 (defining what constitutes a “board meeting”) and Civil Code section 4910 (prohibiting a board from “acting” on items of business outside of a board meeting). The Court’s interpretation of these provisions is summarized below:

Email exchanges between board members are not a “gathering” of the board, and therefore do not constitute a “board meeting”.

“By sending e-mails to one another through cyberspace, often hours or days apart and from different homes and offices, the Association’s directors did not simultaneously gather in one location to transact board business, and therefore they did not conduct a “board meeting” within the meaning of [the OMA].”

The OMA prohibits the board from “acting on” items of business outside of a board meeting, not from “discussing” those items via email outside of a meeting.

“By discussing items of Association business in e-mails… the directors did nothing contrary to the purpose of the OMA, because they took no action on those items in the e-mails. Although the OMA prohibits the board from acting on items of Association business outside a board meeting…it does not prohibit the board from discussing the items outside a meeting.”

Many HOA boards find it difficult to reserve all discussion on items of HOA business solely for the board’s regularly scheduled meetings. This is due to a variety of common factors, such as the large amount of business that must be discussed/acted upon at any given meeting, the intervals at which regularly scheduled Board meetings typically take place (monthly), and the need to share information regarding unforeseen or exigent issues that may arise between Board meetings. The Court’s holding in Alta Del Mar now confirms the ability of an HOA’s board members to freely email with one another to discuss items of business facing their community. This will allow for HOA boards to be in a better position to take appropriate and timely action on those items during their actual meetings.

How to Handle Potential Conflicts of Interest

Published on: March 9, 2022 | by Vivian Tran, Esq.

download Conflicts of interest present possible liabilities that homeowners associations (“HOAs”) should do their utmost to avoid. There are issues that need to be deliberated and decided upon by the Board of Directors; however, in some situations, not all Directors should take part in the decision-making. A common scenario includes a situation where the Director might have a material financial interest in the outcome; or, the Director is violating the governing documents and should not decide on their own disciplinary consequences. Therefore, to keep all lines of communication and responsibilities clear, the Board should watch out for potential conflicts of interest and take the necessary steps to insulate the HOA and the Director from actual conflicts of interest. Some further examples of both potential and actual conflicts of interest could include:

Property damage to common areas abutting a Director’s property.
HOA litigation matters that could directly implicate a Director.
Capital improvements to common areas that would be advantageous to Directors.
The HOA contracting with vendors who have prior relationships with Directors without properly being vetted by neutral parties and/or management.
Using HOA funds to involve legal counsel to aid in a personal vendetta between a Director and HOA member.

What Should the Board Do If There Is A Potential Or Actual Conflict Of Interest?

Pursuant to Corporations Code section 7212, the Board may, by resolution adopted by a majority of the number of Directors then in office, provided that a quorum is present, create an executive committee consisting of two or more Directors, to serve at the pleasure of the Board. The Board has complete control over all committees. This means that the Board will decide who may serve in the committees and what authority they will have, subject only to the restrictions in the governing documents.

Accordingly, if there were any potential or actual conflicts as mentioned above, legal counsel for the association should broach the idea of the Board creating an executive committee around the conflicted Director. While Directors are well-meaning, if their financial interests, property, or personal self are implicated in any way, it would be difficult for the respective Directors to act as a Director (i.e., in good faith and in the best interest of the HOA) and not as a homeowner. This could be quite detrimental for the HOA and possibly even for the Director themselves because if there is an actual conflict of interest, that Director would be exposing themselves to personal liability; and the HOA’s Directors and Officers insurance might not be applicable if the Director acted outside the scope of their duties and decided on matters in such a way that would not benefit the HOA.

Therefore, it would be prudent to resolve any potential conflicts of interest by removing the Director from any decision they might be personally involved in and forming an executive committee around that respective Director. Should the Board have difficulty with this task, it might be best to enlist legal counsel’s help in explaining liabilities and conflicts of interest to all parties involved.

Note that if an executive committee is comprised of enough Directors so as to establish a quorum of the Board, any meeting of that committee could constitute a Board meeting that is subject to the Open Meeting Act’s requirements. Additionally, executive committees must maintain minutes pursuant to Civil Code section 5210 and make them available for inspection by the members within fifteen (15) days following approval.

-Blog post authored by TLG Attorney, Vivian X. Tran, Esq.

What is the Proper Procedure to Adjourn the Annual Meeting?

Published on: January 12, 2022 | by Matthew Plaxton, Esq.

*Asked and Answered

Asked – We recently concluded our Annual Meeting of the Membership. As always, we failed to achieve quorum. Rather than successively adjourn and reconvene the meeting, the Board concluded the meeting. Now we have several owners complaining, saying that the proper procedure was not followed when the Board concluded the meeting. What is the proper procedure?

Answered – It is not uncommon for an association to suffer from “member apathy.” Such apathy is most commonly apparent when it comes time to hold the association’s annual membership meeting (“Annual Meeting”). In order to hold an Annual Meeting (or a special meeting of the members (“Special Meeting”)), a quorum of the membership must be present in person, by written ballot, or, if allowed by the association’s Bylaws, by proxy. Quorum requirements vary.

If a quorum is present, the members may convene the Annual or Special Meeting and conduct the business at hand. If a quorum is not present, the members present at the Annual or Special Meeting have two options: (1) adjourn the meeting, or (2) adjourn the meeting to a later date. The word “members” is emphasized in the preceding sentence to highlight the fact that an Annual or Special Meeting is a meeting of the members. Thus, while the Board president may preside over the meeting, and other Board members may be present, the decisions made thereat are made by the members, not the Board.

The appropriate procedure for adjourning an Annual or Special Meeting is usually set forth in the association’s Bylaws. Nevertheless, California Corporations Code section 7512(d) states that, “[i]n the absence of a quorum, any meeting of members may be adjourned…by the vote of a majority of the votes represented either in person or by proxy….” (Emphasis added.) Thus, the following procedure should be employed:

The “chair” of the Annual or Special Meeting (again, typically the Board president) calls the meeting to order.
An announcement is made that quorum was not reached and therefore the association is unable to hold the meeting.
The chair of the Annual or Special Meeting then entertains motions made by members present at the meeting.

If no motion is made and everyone simply leaves, the matter is concluded; no further action may be taken on the item or items of business for which the meeting was called (unless a Special Meeting is called for that purpose). If a member makes a motion to adjourn, and the motion carries (i.e., a majority of the members present approve the motion), the matter is concluded. The meeting will not be adjourned to a later date. This is because the motion did not specially call for the meeting to be reconvened at a later date. Thus, in order to reconvene the meeting at a later date, a majority of the members present must move to adjourn the meeting to a later date.

It is important to point out that neither the Board nor the managing agent has the authority to unilaterally adjourn the meeting to a later date. For example, when quorum is not achieved, the Board cannot simply establish a date for a reconvened meeting; the decision must be made by the members through a proper motion. Moreover, it is not uncommon for the association’s managing agent and Inspector of Election to be the only persons present at the meeting. Again, neither the managing agent nor the Inspector of Election has the authority to adjourn the meeting to a later date (that is unless the managing agent or Inspector of Election is also a member of the association). It is for this reason that we always recommend that at least one Board member be present at the meeting so that the proper motion can be made. Reconvening the meeting without a proper motion will make any decisions made at said meeting subject to legal challenge.

It is also important to point out that the association cannot correct this deficiency by distributing notice to the membership of the new meeting date. That is because the motion to adjourn to a later date is a procedural prerequisite; meaning, the motion must occur in order to the hold the meeting in the future. Thus, if the association desires to move forward with the Annual or Special Meeting, and the motion was not properly made (or made at all) it will need to restart the process.

Conducting Annual and Special Meetings is important to the effective operation of the association. However, it is equally important that the proper procedure is followed, especially when adjourning meetings. Failure to do so increases the potential for costly disputes.

-Blog post authored by TLG Attorney, Matthew T. Plaxton, Esq.

Can the Board Reconsider an Approved Motion?

Published on: December 22, 2021 | by Matthew Plaxton, Esq.

*Asked and Answered

Asked – Can the Board reconsider a motion that was previously passed by a majority vote? One of the directors that voted in opposition to the motion would like the Board to reconsider.

Answered – One of the Board’s primary responsibilities is to make decisions on behalf of the association. Because the Board is comprised of volunteers with different backgrounds and varying expectations, it is common for Board members to disagree from time-to-time. The directors on the “losing side” of a motion may have concerns over the decision made, feeling that the decision was rushed and made without proper inquiry or consideration of all relevant facts. Those who are on the “winning side” of a motion may learn additional facts which calls into question the decision made. Either way, the question then becomes whether the Board is “stuck” with the decision made.

Although an association is not required to adopt and employ parliamentary procedures to govern Board meetings (unless otherwise required by the association’s governing documents), the Robert’s Rules of Order provides a procedure the association can adopt and use in addressing situations where a Board member requests reconsideration of a previously decided matter. Because it is considered an “unusual” motion, and to prevent abuse from the “losing side,” the motion should be limited to those directors that voted on the prevailing side. So, in the question posed, the director voting in opposition to the motion is unable to make a motion to reconsider. The director must then convince one or more of the directors on the prevailing side to bring the motion. The motion must be made at the Board meeting following the meeting in which the decision was made.

Once the motion is made by a Board member on the prevailing side (the moving party should be required to indicate that they voted on the prevailing side), it must be seconded. However, the second can be made by any Board member, regardless of how they voted on the matter to be reconsidered. Once a motion is made and seconded, the matter is “up for debate.” In order for the motion to carry, a majority of the Board must vote in favor of the motion to reconsider. Note, this motion does not overturn the previous decision. Rather, it simply allows for the previous decision to be reconsidered by the Board (i.e., a new vote to be made on the previous decision). Thus, if the motion passes, the original motion is placed before the Board as if it never happened.

The following is a sample script on the motion to reconsider:

Prevailing Vote Board Member: I move to reconsider the vote on the motion to grant Owner’s reimbursement request. I voted on the prevailing side.

Board Member: I second that motion.

Board President: It is moved and seconded to reconsider the vote on the motion to grant Owner’s reimbursement request. Is there any discussion on reconsidering the vote?

After discussion has occurred the Board President calls for a vote. If, as noted above, the motion passes, the original motion is placed before the Board for discussion and a vote. If the motion fails, the decision made on the original motion stands.

Parliamentary procedure is complex and often confusing. Such rules seem archaic and draconian. Nevertheless, it is important for the Board to adopt and adhere to such procedures to avoid wasting time discussing matters that have already been decided.

-Blog post authored by TLG Attorney, Matthew T. Plaxton, Esq.

Asked and Answered: Recall Petitions

Published on: September 8, 2021 | by Matthew Plaxton, Esq.

*Asked & Answered

Asked – We recently completed our annual meeting/election where approximately ninety-four percent (94%) of the membership participated. Almost immediately thereafter, we received a petition to recall the Board of Directors (“Board”). Must our association go forward with the recall election? What alternate options are available to the Board?

Answered – Most common interest developments (“CIDs”) are formed as nonprofit mutual benefit corporations. Under California’s nonprofit corporation law, “any or all directors may be removed without cause” (Cal. Corp. Code § 7222 (emphasis added)); meaning that directors can be removed by the membership for any reason, or no reason at all. In order to initiate the recall process, five percent (5%) of the membership may submit a petition to the CID (usually addressed to its president) requesting that a special meeting of the membership be noticed for the purpose of recalling the Board (or any director). The notice requirements are addressed in California Corporations Code section 7511(c).

Recall elections can disrupt the effective operation of the CID and are often a costly endeavor. And, in most cases, such efforts fail to achieve the petitioning members’ desired objective—the removal of the Board. This is especially true in situations where the CID’s Bylaws allow for cumulative voting and members try to recall individual directors. (See Removal & Recall of Directors – Individual Director or Directors.) Nevertheless, under most circumstances, the CID must take action in response to a petition to recall the Board. However, based on the facts contained in the question presented, there may be other options available. The three options available in response to a valid recall petition are:

Perform only those acts required to conduct a recall election;
Do nothing in response to the petition other than to inform the petitioners that the Board has elected not to take action; or
Perform all acts necessary to hold a recall election and concurrent director election.

Each option will be discussed in turn.

Option #1 – Perform only those acts required to conduct a recall election.

According to the facts provided in this question, the petitioning members have submitted a petition to recall the Board. The petitioning members have not also requested that a director election be held in the event the recall is successful. Thus, the Board could simply notice a special meeting of the membership to recall the Board without soliciting membership votes on replacement directors. This approach is problematic for the CID.

Under California Corporations Code section 7220(b), a director continues to serve until their successor is elected, “unless the director has been removed from office.” Thus, if the recall is successful, all directors immediately cease being on the Board; in other words, the CID will be without a Board. Failure to have a Board violates California Corporations Code section 7210, which states that “[e]ach corporation shall have a board of directors.” (Emphasis added.) Moreover, without a Board, the CID will be significantly prejudiced; it will not be able to carry out its obligations under California law and its governing documents (e.g., maintenance may cease, rule enforcement ends, the CID will be unable to respond to lawsuits, etc.).

Since the CID will be without a Board, members will be forced to file a petition with the Superior Court for the appointment of a receiver pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 564(a)(9). The receiver will then manage the affairs of the CID and will initiate the procedure to conduct a director election. This, of course, is problematic in several respects. First, receivers are paid for their services. Most CIDs do not have adequate financial resources to cover unanticipated expenses. The receiver therefore may be forced (and will have the authority) to levy an emergency special assessment. Second, the receiver’s objectives are not usually in line with the interests of the CID’s members.

In light of the foregoing concerns, it would not be in the CID’s best interest to proceed in this fashion (i.e., conduct the recall election without a concurrent director election).

Option #2 – Do nothing in response to the petition other than to inform the petitioners that the Board has elected not to take action

Based on the information given, this option may be reasonable under the circumstances, especially given the overwhelming voter turnout (approximately ninety-four percent (94%) of the membership participated in the election). If such option is selected, the petitioning members will have the option of giving notice of the special meeting pursuant to California Corporations Code section 7511(c), or may petition the Court to require that such notice be given by the CID. Either way, the petitioners will be required to obtain a Court order directing the CID to prepare and distribute ballots as the petitioners do not have such authority. (See Cal. Civ. Code § 5115 (“Ballots and two preaddressed envelopes with instructions on how to return ballots shall be mailed by first-class mail or delivered by the association to every member….”).)

This option, while seemingly reasonable, raises similar concerns referenced above. To the extent members petition the court for an order compelling the CID to take action in response to the petition (including providing notice and preparing/distributing balloting materials), the CID will incur significant legal fees in defense of its position in this matter (unless insurance-appointed defense counsel steps in to provide a defense). And, in the event the petitioners are successful, the CID will incur costs relative to holding the recall election/director election. Again, most CIDs are not in a financial position to incur these additional costs.

Option #3 – Perform all acts necessary to hold a recall election and concurrent director election.

The third, and final, option—to conduct the recall election and concurrent director election—is the only option available to the CID that minimizes the CID’s financial harm and liability exposure. It is therefore the preferred course of action in response to a petition to recall the Board.

It is important to note that recent changes to the California Civil Code governing CID elections has made it practically impossible for a CID to comply with the timing requirements contained in California Corporations Code section 7511(c) and those contained in California Civil Code section 5115. Nevertheless, California Civil Code section 5100(a)(1) makes it clear that the procedural requirements contained within the Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act (“Act”) control—“Notwithstanding any other law….” The CID must therefore comply with the procedural requirements contained in California Civil Code section 5115 notwithstanding the degree to which same deviates from those contained in California Corporations Code section 7511.

Other Option Available to the CID to Prevent Recall Petitions Immediately After a Director Election

The foregoing has addressed the ways in which a CID may respond to a recall petition immediately after the conclusion of a director election. It does not, however, address how a CID may prevent such petitions from being brought in the future. One way in which a CID may prevent such petitions from being brought in the future is to adopt rules governing recall elections. Although the Act does not directly address the extent to which a CID may restrict recall petitions, other bodies of law have. For example, in the California Elections Code, a person is precluded from bringing a recall petition against “an officer of a city, county, special district, school district, community college district, or county board of education” if one ore more of the specifically identified limitations apply (e.g., the officer “has not held office during [their] current term for more than 90 days”). A CID may adopt a similar limitation for director recalls.

Each recall petition is unique. Thus, while the foregoing provides general guidance based on the particular facts identified above, each CID must confer with its attorney to determine the appropriate response to a recall petition.

-Blog post authored by TLG Attorney, Matthew T. Plaxton, Esq.

Managing the Coronavirus – A Discussion of Preliminary Board Concerns

Published on: March 18, 2020 | by Steven J. Tinnelly, Esq.

covid-19-1330px Over the last few business days, our firm has received several calls regarding the Coronavirus (COVID – 19). We understand the obstacles created by COVID – 19 because successful association governance depends upon engaged community involvement and personal interaction.

The purpose of this blog post is to provide a brief overview of our response to some of the common questions we have received. It is based upon information which is currently available as of March 17, 2020. The recommendations set forth herein are subject to change based upon governmental mandates.

Continuance of Necessary Business Operations:

Community associations, as non-profit corporations, should continue to perform essential business operations (i.e. collect Member assessments and pay Association bills) during this epidemic. As of the time of this drafting (3/17/20), President Trump released new guidelines to slow the spread of COVID – 19 by advising the public to avoid groups of more than ten (10) individuals, among other safeguards. Governor Newsome recommends that restaurants eliminate dine-in options and the closure of movie theaters and health clubs. Medical professionals have uniformly taken the position that social distancing can minimize virus transmission. In view of those protections, boards, in consultation with management and legal counsel, should consider the temporary closure of community-based events and functions, particularly in situations where residents constitute a high-risk demographic (i.e. age-restricted communities).

Board Meetings:

Board meeting procedure is regulated by an association’s governing documents and the Civil Code. An association’s by-laws will set forth the frequency of board meetings. Boards should consider postponing non-essential general session board meetings, or in the alternative, conducting essential association business in executive session only via teleconference as permitted by California law. Boards may conduct general session and executive session board meetings via teleconference upon proper notice which identifies at least one physical location so that Members of the association may attend (Civil Code Section 4090 (b)). At least one director or a person designated by the board shall be present at that location (Civil Code Section 4090 (b)).

To the extent possible, efforts should be made to protect Member rights, such as the right to attend board meetings and participate in homeowner’s forums. How do we balance those rights with current social distancing recommendations? There might be a viable path under the Open Meeting Act. Members possess the legal right to attend general session board meetings and shall be entitled to attend teleconferenced board meetings (Civil Code Section 4925). An argument could be made that Members may attend general session board meetings via teleconferencing means if such board meeting was previously noticed as a teleconference board meeting and the procedural requirements are satisfied as referenced above. Discuss with legal counsel whether the Open Meeting Act could be interpreted to allow Member attendance (via audio and/or video means) at teleconferenced board meetings instead of physical presence at the meeting location.

We recommend that boards consult with legal counsel to discuss teleconferenced general session board meeting procedure before deciding to hold open meetings without members and then issuing minutes thereafter. It is unclear how a superior court judge, in the event of a later Member challenge, might evaluate the handling of board meeting procedure during this current state of emergency. A possible judicial response might be to review how the association attempted to substantially comply with the law using the governance tools that are presently available through the Open Meeting Act.

Member Notice:

Medical professionals state that individuals respond to crisis and stress in different ways; it is very likely that some may be scared while others may not be. Residents may look to the association and management for guidance and direction. For that reason, transparency is desirable. Boards should work with their management partners and legal counsel to develop a policy statement which identifies how your community intends to respond to COVID – 19 with respect to association meetings and community affairs. In the event of common area closure or facility limitations, notices should be posted which explain the board’s reasoning in that regard. Association residents should be directed to governmental agencies (e.g. CDC, California Department of Public Health, and county health agencies) for more information.

On March 12, 2020, California Governor Gavin Newsom issued Executive Order N-25-20 (“Order”) which modified how legislative bodies may conduct public meetings via teleconference under the Brown Act. That Order does not apply to private association meetings which are governed by the Open Meeting Act and we are not aware of emergency legislation that might govern how association meetings are expected to be handled during this health crisis. Although not applicable, the spirit of the Order’s final provision should be considered as we think about association governance during this time; namely, the Order concludes by stating that, “all state and local bodies are urged to use sound discretion and to make reasonable efforts to adhere as reasonably as possible to the provisions of the … Brown Act, and other applicable local laws regulating the conduct of public meetings, in order to maximize transparency and provide access to their meetings.”

It is critically important that boards work closely with their management partners and legal counsel to develop practical solutions regarding Board governance which, to the extent possible, complies with the Open Meeting Act while protecting Member safety.

-Blog post authored by TLG Attorney, Kumar S. Raja, Esq.

Recent California Court of Appeals Ruling Demonstrates Broad Reach of Ban on Nuisances

Published on: May 7, 2019 | by Steven J. Tinnelly, Esq.

*Unpublished Opinion

The Court of Appeals recently rendered an unpublished opinion in Harbour Island Condominium Owners Association, Inc. v. Alexander (2019), which provides some clarity regarding a tenant’s right to attend board meetings and the ban on noxious activities within the community.

The Harbour Island Condominium Owners Association (“HOA”) sought a restraining order (known as a preliminary injunction) against two tenants and their landlord to abate the tenants’ noxious behavior. The HOA relied on the provision in the CC&R’s, which stated that residents cannot disturb the neighborhood or occupants of a neighboring property or create a nuisance.

Neighboring residents made several complaints to the HOA about the tenants’ excessive and purposeful noise: the tenants consistently stomped on their floors and slammed their doors. In addition to the noise complaints, tenants permitted their dog to urinate in the Common Area, despite the posted “No Dogs” signs. Lastly, the tenants engaged in aggressive behavior against the Board of Directors in an apparent attempt to intimidate Board Members. For example, the tenants secretly photographed a Board Member at the pool on different occasions.

The trial court granted the preliminary injunction, ordering the tenants and their landlord to install throw rugs throughout the unit and a sound-muffling device on the doors; to cease photographing Board Members; and to prevent their dog from urinating on the Common Area. The trial court ruled in favor of the HOA because the tenants’ noxious behavior unfairly oppressed the rest of the community, while the ordered corrective measures were minimally oppressive to the tenants.

The Court of Appeals upheld the trial court’s decision. Despite the fact that the HOA’s nuisance provision did not mention dogs, the Court broadly interpreted the existing provision to encompass the exclusion of dogs from the Common Area for health and safety reasons.

Furthermore, the Court held that the nuisance provision bans acoustic nuisances that interfere with a neighbor’s right to quiet enjoyment. In this case, the nuisance claims were supported by credible witness testimony that the tenants’ noise was excessive.

Lastly, the Court of Appeals disagreed with the tenants that their due process rights had been violated since the tenants were not permitted to challenge the violation notices at hearings. The Court held that only Owners with vested property rights are Members of the HOA. As such, only Members may participate in HOA meetings.

The Harbour Island case highlights the broad reach of nuisance provisions in CC&Rs and serves as a reminder that Owners, not tenants, have the right to attend and participate in HOA meetings.

-Blog post authored by TLG Attorney, Sarah A. Kyriakedes, Esq.

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.