HOA Lawyer Blog

Governor Signs Bill Prohibiting HOAs from Unreasonably Restricting EV Charging Stations

Published on: July 26, 2011 | by Steven J. Tinnelly, Esq.

In furtherance of California’s energy conservation goals, Governor Brown has signed Senate Bill 209 (“SB209”) which prohibits Homeowners Associations (“HOAs”) from unreasonably restricting the installation of electric vehicle (“EV”) charging staitons in their communities. SB209 will take effect January 1, 2012.

CAI’s California Legislative Action Committee (“CAI-CLAC”) worked with the author of SB209 to ensure that potential issues regarding an HOA’s responsibility and control over these stations would be adequately addressed.
The work of CAI-CLAC was reflected in Governor Brown’s signing message to the California Senate: “The author has assured me that she will pursue legislation that clearly protects the right of [HOAs] to establish reasonable rules for any use of common areas for charging stations.”

The aesthetic concerns over EV charging stations are easy to understand. However, there may be an incentive for a HOA to voluntarily install the stations for use by its members/tenants:
a new revenue stream. Practically every major Southern California utility company offers discounted rates on electricity used to charge EVs. However, according to a recent decision by the California Public Utilities Commission (“CPUC”), “condominium associations that provide electric vehicle charging on the premises as a service to condominium owners…that have not dedicated their equipment for public use” are not regulated as public utilities and therefore not subject to various rate controls when deciding what price to charge for the use of the stations.Thus, a HOA could install the stations for use by its members/tenants and ultimately profit from them.

Governor Vetoes HOA Artificial Turf Bill

Published on: July 19, 2011 | by Steven J. Tinnelly, Esq.

Congratulations to CAI’s California Legislative Action Committee (“CAI-CLAC”) for successfully working to get Senate Bill 759 vetoed. SB 759 would have required Homeowners Associations to permit the installation of artificial turf in their communities. This marks the second time that such a bill was ultimately vetoed by a California Governor.

SB 759 purported to serve a water conservation goal and was passed by the California Legislature with bipartisan support. The Community Association Industry’s opposition to the bill was based largely on the realization that such a bill would intrude on the self-governance rights reserved for Homeowners Associations.

In his veto message, Governor Jerry Brown stated that “[t]he decision about choosing synthetic turf instead of natural vegetation should be left to individual homeowners associations, not mandated by state law.”

The Governor’s action with respect to this bill serves as an important recognition of the fact that Homeowners Associations are meant to be autonomous, self-regulating entities. Congratulations again to CAI-CLAC for their hard work.

To read CAI-CLAC’s Veto Request Letter, click

Web-based Board Meetings

Published on: July 13, 2011 | by Steven J. Tinnelly, Esq.

*Asked & Answered

Asked – Many of our unit owners and some Board Members live out of state. The Board has opted to hold “virtual” board meetings via web-conferencing. Is this permissible?

Answered – Yes. Provided that your HOA’s CC&Rs do not explicitly require physical Board Meetings, a Board can hold a “virtual Board Meeting” so long as the meeting complies with the California Corporations Code and the “Open Meeting Act.”

California Corporation’s Code Section 7211(a)(6) permits Directors to hold meetings through the use of “conference telephone or electronic video screen communication” so long as they are able to hear one another and participate in the meeting. The “Open Meeting Act” (California Civil Code Section 1363.05), however, allows members to attend all meetings of the Board of Directors. The web-conferencing platform must therefore allow all members to attend the meeting electronically and participate in open forum during the meeting. Most modern video-conferencing platforms contain this type of functionality. However, if there are any owners wishing to attend the virtual meeting who lack the technology or know-how required to do so, the HOA may need to take additional measures to accomodate such owners. These measures may include setting up a computer/web-conferencing terminal in a common area building or working with the HOA’s management to find a similar solution.

Web-conferencing is slowly becoming a more valuable tool for HOA Boards of Directors. In addition to providing an added convenience to owners wishing to participate more in HOA affairs, it can also serve as an efficient and cost-saving communications tool between the Board and the HOA’s legal counsel.

To submit questions to Tinnelly Law Group, click here.

Defining HOA “Membership” & “Ownership” Status for Registered Domestic Partners

Published on: June 14, 2011 | by Steven J. Tinnelly, Esq.

*Asked & Answered

Asked – Our Association’s By-laws state that you must be an owner of the Association to be eligible for election to the Board. Would the registered domestic partner of the person on title be considered an owner in the State of California under California Community Property Law?

Answered – Not in this instance. Most Association Governing Documents require that anyone wishing to serve on the Association’s Board of Directors be a “member” of the Association. Pursuant to California Civil Code Section 1358, “membership” within an Association is granted by virtue of a person’s ownership interest in the Association. Thus, so long as a person is an owner of a unit within the Association, they are granted membership rights.

Proof of one’s ownership interest in the Association is established through a deed which has been recorded in the Association’s County Recorder’s Office. The persons whose names are listed on the recorded deed are considered to be the “Owners of Record.”

Virtually every Association requires that a member be an “Owner of Record” in order to be eligible to serve on the Board of Directors. Therefore, a registered domestic partner who is not an “Owner of Record” would not satisfy this requirement. To resolve this issue, the domestic partner must be named on the recorded deed to the property. California Community Property law does not render spouses or domestic partners “Owners of Record” for such purposes if their names do not appear on the recorded deed.

To submit questions to Tinnelly Law Group, click here.

Can HOA Enforcement Actions Equate to Discrimination?

Published on: June 8, 2011 | by Steven J. Tinnelly, Esq.

The recent, unpublished opinion in Radell v. Park Wilshire Homeowners Association (2011) illustrates the importance of fully complying with prescribed HOA enforcement procedures. In Radell, the Plaintiffs alleged that the Willshire Bark Homeowners Association (“Association”) Board of Directors (“Board”) “committed a series of discriminatory acts intended to diminish the presence of Puerto Rican women in their upscale condominium building.”

The issue arose out of the Defendant’s use of their maid’s unit for residential purposes– a use which the Board felt constituted a violation of the Association’s CC&Rs. Rather than following the Association’s prescribed enforcement procedures, the Board declined to extend a confidential disciplinary hearing regarding the issue to the Defendants. The Board opted instead to publish the alleged violation to the entirety of the Association’s membership.

To make matters worse, the Board held an unnoticed, confidential Board meeting where they initiated a recall election against the Defendant Board Member. The Defendants then brought a housing discrimination action against the Association under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) and the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 (FHA) by alleging that the Board “engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination through disparate treatment on the basis of race, ancestry and national origin.”

Though the the holding in Radell primarily touches on Anti-Slapp motions in the context of housing discrimination, it also demonstrates how a Board’s conduct in enforcing CC&Rs can subject an Association to defending costly lawsuits. Boards must be diligent in fully complying with prescribed enforcement policies and procedures when dealing with each and every potential violation.

New Data & Analytics Firm Seeks to “Bridge the Gap” Between the Mortgage Industry and HOAs

Published on: June 1, 2011 | by Steven J. Tinnelly, Esq.

A new subsidiary of a national asset management firm has been founded to help resolve some of the problems experienced by Homeowners Associations (“HOAs”) and the mortgage industry in the resale of foreclosed and defaulting residential properties. A press release by the newly formed company, Sperlonga Data and Analytics, states that HOA claims for unpaid dues “frequently create problems and delays” in the sale process. Sperlonga believes that these delays cause “hundreds of millions of dollars in losses for the mortgage industry annually, largely because parties have no means to contact one another.”

Sperlonga seeks to help facilitate contact with HOAs, lenders and other lien holders. Their goal is to resolve outstanding HOA obligations before they can negatively impact the resale process. “After hearing again and again of homeowners’ associations creating issues at closing for parties wanting to buy and sell assets, it became evident that this problem was costing the industry tremendous amounts of time and money…With no single source of reliable association data or standardization in place to manage this process, we saw an immediate opportunity to deliver a solution with real value for all parties.” (Sperlonga’s chairman and CEO).

Sperlonga will provide a “centralized repository” for HOAs to submit their demands for unpaid assessments. These demands will then be directed by Sperlonga to the appropriate party for payment–usually a bank or other financial institution.

It is great to see the attention being given to the difficulties experienced by HOAs attempting to collect on unpaid assessment obligations and how HOAs are suffering from significant foreclosures and vacancies. Any efforts made by service providers and those in the mortgage industry to provide a more efficient resale process for distressed properties will certainly help HOAs and their communities.

Turning up the Heat on HOA Collection Practices

Published on: May 26, 2011 | by Steven J. Tinnelly, Esq.

The increase in assessment collection efforts by Homeowners Associations (“HOAs”) is being seen nation-wide. States like California, Nevada and Texas are currently debating new legislation aimed at making some drastic, and potentially harmful, reforms to the ways in which HOAs can pursue and collect delinquent assessments.

In California, there is a proposed bill that would significantly affect a HOA’s ability to collect delinquent assessments. SB 561 will, in a nutshell, make it much more difficult for a HOA to recover the collection costs and fees incurred in connection with collecting delinquent assessments. There is signficant industry opposition to the bill.**

Additionally, some property owners are beginning to take a more agressive stance against HOA collection efforts. In Nevada, investors in foreclosed homes recently filed a new class-action complaint against more than 500 Nevada HOAs. They allege that HOAs have unlawfully allowed collection companies to collect costs that were never incurred by the HOAs.

New legislation and legal challenges concerning HOA collection practices could radically impact the financial and operational structure of HOAs and collection companies. Hopefully, the increase in attention will help to (1) spotlight the tremendous toll that delinquencies are taking on HOAs and (2) provide a clear, settled framework for HOAs to use in their collection efforts.

**To read more about industry sentiments toward SB561, visit CAI’s California Legislative Action Committee’s website.

Credit Card Processing of HOA Assessments: Good Idea?

Published on: May 17, 2011 | by Steven J. Tinnelly, Esq.

Associations are required to levy regular and special assessments sufficient to perform their obligations under their governing documents and Ca. Civ. Code §1366(a). Associations may encounter difficulties in getting their members to pay assessments on a regular and timely basis. In response to these difficulties, some Associations are providing credit card processing of assessment payments as a courtesy to their members and/or an incentive for delinquent members to fulfill their assessment obligations while deferring the actual payment. The fees involved in processing assessments by credit card are then sometimes absorbed by the Association.

Several Managers and Board members have contacted us regarding the propriety of absorbing these fees.

We have prepared an article on this issue which is available for download from our Library. The article is entitled “Absorbing Credit Card Transaction Fees”.

In sum, absorbing these fees is problematic because (1) it results in an inequity for the Association’s members that pay their assessments by cash or check and (2) likely violates the assessment requirements of the Association’s CC&Rs. Associations that provide credit card processing of assessments should ensure that the members paying by credit card are responsible for any transaction fees and costs involved.

For a more detailed discussion of this issue, click here to read the article.

To submit questions to Tinnelly Law Group, click here.

HOA To Install CA’s Largest Residential Solar Water Heating Project

Published on: May 11, 2011 | by Steven J. Tinnelly, Esq.

More and more Associations throughout California are considering the implementation of alternative energy sources as a mechanism to reduce their operating expenses. An Association in San Jose will begin construction on the largest solar water heating project in the state later this month in an effort to reduce its water heating bills.

The Association is comprised of 320 residential units and uses an average of 10,000 gallons of hot water per day for showers, dishwashers, laundry and other residential purposes. By switching from natural gas to solar energy for their water heating needs, the Association expects to reduce its water heating bills by as much as 60%.

The project will benefit significantly from the new California Solar Initiative (CSI) Thermal Program which provides the Association with rebates valued at over $185,000. These rebates will help offset the costs of installing a total of 183 commercial grade solar hot water collectors to be mounted on five roofs of the Association’s buildings.

Homeowners Associations in California may want to explore the feasibility of implementing alternative energy within their communities. Some CC&Rs may restrict or prohibit these installations; however, any such restrictions flatly prohibiting solar panels and supporting equipment are null and void in California. If you would like some guidance on this issue, contact our offices to discuss with one of our attorneys the options available to your Association.

To read the original article, click here.
To visit the solar system manufacturer’s website, click here.

Board Member Qualifications: Defining “Ownership” for a Trust Beneficiary

Published on: May 9, 2011 | by Steven J. Tinnelly, Esq.

*Asked & Answered

Question – One of our incumbent Board Members was recently discovered to be the beneficiary of a trust that holds title to her home. The title was transferred by Grant Deed to the named Trustee many years ago. The Board Member asserts that she is an owner and thus eligible to serve as a Board Member. Is she correct?

Maybe. Associations are permitted to set reasonable requirements/qualifications in their Bylaws or CC&Rs for members to serve on the Board. Laguna Royale v. Darger (1981). These requirements typically include that any member wishing to serve on the Board have an ownership interest in a property located within the Association. We typically treat the trustees as the owners of the property due to their ability to control title. However, general principles of trust law in California view trust beneficiaries as holding “the equitable estate or beneficial interest in” property held in a trust and are “regarded as the real owner[s] of [that] property.” Steinhart v. County of Los Angeles (2010).

The answer will ultimately depend on a number of factors including the nature of the restrictions/qualifications contained in your Association’s Governing Documents and the type of trust involved. We recommend discussing the issue with your Association’s legal counsel.

To submit questions to Tinnelly Law Group, click here.

HOA Lawyer BLog