Home All Publications

What do we do when Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is at the door?

Morad Fakhimi, Esq.

Of Counsel

858.527.0111
Email
Practice: Community Association Counsel

Share this article:

Immigration enforcement operations in the common interest development context can give rise to certain liability issues of which community associations should be aware. Situations may arise where community associations and association managers would need to grapple with questions about the rights and obligations of all involved when it comes to requests by ICE for homeowners’ documents or information, and requests or demands by ICE to enter and search non-public areas belonging to an association.

As a starting point, it should be noted that there is no general legal obligation in the United States to provide information to law enforcement officers. The Fourth Amendment protects the people from unreasonable searches and seizures, and requires government agents to secure judicial permission, in the form of a warrant, before conducting searches and seizures. Initially, it is important to distinguish between the two types of warrants that may be presented in this context. ICE is empowered to issue its own “administrative” arrest warrants for individuals facing deportation. Administrative warrants, however, do not authorize agents to enter onto and search private property. On the other hand, a search warrant, signed by a judge, does authorize agents to enter and search private property and to seize the types of evidence described in the warrant. In any event, because the Fourth Amendment only protects against unreasonable searches and seizures, the United States Supreme Court has recognized several exceptions to the warrant requirement. For present purposes, only three of those exceptions have any relevance: (1) the exigent circumstances doctrine, (2) consent searches, and (3) the plain view doctrine.

As to consent searches, if ICE agents contact an association manager or a community association and request homeowner or resident records or information, or if they ask for permission to enter non-pubic areas of a community, there are two legally available options. The first option is to consent. An association manager or an association representative can, of course, simply consent and voluntarily hand over documents or information, or open the gates and invite the agents onto the non-public parts of the property to conduct their investigation or enforcement operations. Having consented, the association could not later claim that it was the victim of an unreasonable search or seizure. The second option is to withhold consent and to inform the officers that a judicial search warrant is necessary. The second option is, by far, the better approach to protecting the interests of the association because: (1) as mentioned, there is no general obligation to give law enforcement any information, or to allow access to non-public areas absent a judicial search warrant, subpoena, or other court order to do so, and (2) voluntarily handing over homeowner documents and information, or permitting agents to enter non-public areas could needlessly expose the association to potential liability. 

Suing the federal government involves several complications (i.e., the sovereign immunity doctrine, and the requirements and exceptions of the Federal Tort Claims Act). Because it is possible that a homeowner or resident, or their property, may be injured or damaged as a result of the voluntary information disclosure or the consent to law enforcement’s entry into the non-public areas of the association, an unfortunate situation may arise due to the fact that it is also possible under a variety of circumstances that the government would be shielded from liability (which would be the case if the liability were be based on discretionary government functions, or intentional torts such as wrongful arrest, malicious prosecution, libel, assault, or battery). This would leave the association as the most readily accessible party to be sued. Thus, when asked to consent to searches of non-public areas, or to voluntarily hand over association documents or records, the safest course of action for the association is to politely decline and to state that such disclosures or searches of non-public areas require a judicial search warrant, subpoena, or other court order. 

The United States Supreme Court has also recognized that certain exigent circumstances could render an otherwise unreasonable warrantless search or seizure reasonable under the circumstances. That is, if an agent or officer were to make forcible entry onto private property to search for and seize documents or evidence (or persons), that doing so could be justified by certain types of emergencies (such as threats to life and limb, or the risk of evidence being destroyed). The Supreme Court has also recognized a “plain view” exception to the warrant requirement that might justify forcible entry onto private property to search for and seize evidence if the evidence (and its contraband nature) were plainly visible from an outside vantage point. The upshot of the both the exigent circumstances and plain view doctrines, for present purposes, is that if ICE agents (or any law enforcement officers) seem intent making a warrantless forcible entry into non-public areas, and/or seizing association documents or records, it is important to stand aside and avoid even the perception of actively blocking, obstructing, or impeding them because doing so would subject someone to criminal charges. While withholding consent is a constitutional right – actively obstructing, impeding, or interfering with the activities of law enforcement is a criminal offense. 

If you have any questions, or need advice, regarding ICE searches or requests for homeowner records or documents, please reach out to your association’s legal counsel. 

Former Board Member Duties

Jillian M. Wright, Esq.

Shareholder

858.527.0111
Email
Practice: Community Association Counsel

Share this article:

What happens when a board member’s term ends or they step down? Serving on the board of a homeowners’ association is a big responsibility. Board members act as fiduciaries for their communities, making decisions that affect the financial health and harmony of the association. While former board members no longer have decision-making authority, they continue to hold certain duties and ethical responsibilities that protect themselves and the association.
 
Continuing Fiduciary Duties
One of a board member’s fiduciary duties is the duty of loyalty, which includes a duty to maintain confidences, such as information received in executive session meetings. Board members have access to sensitive legal and financial information. A former board member must still protect confidential and privileged information acquired during their tenure to avoid harming the association.
 
The legal and policy reasons for imposing the duty to maintain confidences (despite laws generally favoring transparency) survive a director’s term of office. The duty to maintain such confidences is an outgrowth of the fiduciary duty of an agent to his or her principal. When an agent receives confidential information in the course of that agency, the agent is bound to maintain that confidence even after the agency has terminated.
 
State law echoes these policy concerns in Government Code section 54963, part of the Brown Act, which provides that “[a] person may not disclose confidential information that has been acquired by being present in a closed session…to a person not entitled to receive it, unless the legislative body authorizes disclosure of that confidential information….” While the citations above do not pertain directly to common interest developments, the portion of the Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act titled Open Meetings Act was modeled after the Brown Act. As such, this law is instructive as to how a court might ultimately rule on the matter. This law is also instructive as to how a board should address the issues of confidentiality at executive session board meetings.
 
Keeping information confidential also extends to use of the membership list. Board members have access to owners’ personal information, and in some cases, they have more information than owners feel comfortable sharing with the community (i.e., the personal information of owners who have opted out of having their names and contact information included in the membership list; phone numbers, which owners are not entitled to obtain when requesting the membership list). Board members should return this record to management and not use the confidential information contained in this list for their own personal agenda. Practically, this information changes with time anyway, so people who previously allowed their contact information to be included in the membership list may have later opted out. For a former board member to use an old membership list to contact owners or worse, send that old membership list to other people, would be a breach of their fiduciary duty to maintain that confidential information and would render an owner’s choice to opt out meaningless.
 
Practice Tip
Board members must promptly return association property – keys, access cards, laptops, digital files, or email accounts –upon leaving their role. The new board or management should make sure access codes and passwords are changed upon the transfer of power.
 
Conclusion
Stepping down from the board does not erase all of the responsibilities that come with the role. Former board members should maintain confidentiality and assist in the smooth transition of knowledge and records. Responsible stewardship is the key to avoiding liability for the association and themselves personally.

Don’t be Lured into Using the Barnacle to Address Illegal Parking

Karyn A. Larko, Esq.

Shareholder

858.527.0111
Email
Practices: Community Association Counsel 

Share this article:

Some security patrol companies are touting the use of the “Barnacle” to combat illegal parking in the common area.  They claim that it is a quicker, easier, and less burdensome method of parking enforcement than towing.
 
The Barnacle is a device that attaches to the front windshield of a vehicle, fully obstructing the driver’s view so the vehicle cannot be driven.  The driver must pay a fine in exchange for obtaining the code needed to remove the device.
 
While this device is certainly effective in immobilizing illegally parked vehicles, its use, as well as the use of boots and other similar devices, is illegal in California.
 
In 2004, the Office of the California Attorney General determined that the use of the boot, which immobilizes a vehicle, constitutes “tampering” in violation of California Vehicle Code section 108522 because it negatively impacts the vehicle owner’s use and enjoyment of their vehicle.  Section 108522 provides that:

“No person shall either individually or in association with one or more other persons, willfully injure or tamper with any vehicle or the contents thereof, or break or remove any part of a vehicle without the consent of the owner.”
 
While the Barnacle immobilizes a vehicle in a different way, it still serves the same purpose as the boot, which is to prevent the vehicle from being driven.  Under the California Attorney General’s analysis, the use of the Barnacle also violates California Vehicle Code section 108522 because it also negatively impacts the vehicle owner’s use and enjoyment of their vehicle.
 
Neither the law nor the Office of the California Attorney General is exempt from section 108522 devices used to enforce legitimate parking restrictions.
 
For now, this means that the only effective way to enforce common area parking restrictions when fines and membership suspensions are not working is to tow, even though towing comes with its own set of risks.
 
PRACTICE TIP
Before towing any vehicles from the common area, make sure the Association has the signage required by California Vehicle Code section 22658 prominently displayed at all entrances to the community.  As an extra precaution, additional signs warning that illegally parked vehicles may be towed should be displayed periodically within the community.

Emerging Generative Artificial Intelligence Governance in Community Associations

Gabriel P. Huerta, Esq.

Attorney at Law

858.527.0111
Email
Practices: Civil Litigation & Appeals

Share this article:

On July 29, 2024, the American Bar Association issued Formal Opinion 512, its first formal ethics guidance on the use of generative artificial intelligence (referred to as “GAI”). While addressed to attorneys, these ethical guideposts affect directors and managers when employing GAI in the daily operations of their community associations.

Formal Opinion 512 highlights the duties of competence and confidentiality under Model Rules of Professional Conduct sections 1.1 and 1.6. Directors and managers hold similar fiduciary duties, which have been discussed in the previously posted Best Practices article. The key takeaway as to competency is that directors and managers need to understand that GAI can “hallucinate” – that is, produce false or misleading content. Thus, all GAI-assisted output should be treated as an assistant for the first draft, not as the final editor. Directors and managers can be trained in GAI literacy by focusing on input parameters and output verification to ensure accurate work product.

As for confidentiality, directors and managers are custodians of association records. For every GAI software that an association utilizes, it is important to verify each software’s policies pertaining to data encryption, storage location, document retention, and user accessibility. It is also important to know whether data input by the user is used to train language learning models. These verifications ensure data security and privacy compliance as GAI becomes integrated into the standard operating procedures of associations, especially for niches such as the Safe at Home Program under Civil Code section 5216.

Additionally, Formal Opinion 512 highlights the importance of transparent communication under Model Rules of Professional Conduct section 1.4. Just as attorneys must disclose substantive GAI tool usage to clients, directors and managers have the same obligation. For example, directors and managers maintain a duty to disclose to the community whenever GAI is used to help perform association duties, such as GAI-assisted dictation software that produces meeting transcripts. Disclosing to the community of said use would create an expectation to have all meetings, as well as hearings, transcribed. In turn, transcripts would be responsive to formal records request under Civil Code section 5200 et seq. and become further discoverable in litigation. While GAI-assisted transcription may help document exactly what members say at meetings, the persistent use of GAI-assisted dictation software may burden the association more than help it.  

Further, Formal Opinion 512 also impacts attorneys’ fees under Model Rules of Professional Conduct section 1.5, stating that attorneys should bill only for reviewing GAI output and not simply using it. Directors and managers would be keen to review their engagement agreements and applicable vendor contracts for any terms requiring GAI disclosure and verification. Soon, more attorneys are going to be required to disclose GAI use in fee agreements, and whether the time spent learning or training to use GAI is billed.

Though GAI implicates several fiduciary duties, it also presents an opportunity for community associations to enhance their standard operating procedures. Implementation can start with straightforward, low-sensitive tasks such as a resident newsletter or a welcome flyer to build user confidence. Over time, directors and managers can develop prompting skills without simply pasting content into GAI software and thus inadvertently exposing sensitive information. (e.g., draft a concise, understandable [output] for residents about [topic]; change tone to courteous but firm; create a seasonal maintenance checklist for a community association with [type of amenities] and [X] as the budget).

There are free and very affordable, low-cost options for GAI software, many of which contain templates for infographics, FAQs, or meeting slides. As automated usage grows, associations may need to budget for upgraded versions of software, so long as the cost is justified by work product. At a higher budget tier, and with guidance from legal counsel and an Artificial Intelligence Governance professional, chatbots can be designed and integrated to field association duties when managers are off the clock, such as maintenance requests. Using predictive analytics, directors or managers with business backgrounds may be able to utilize GAI to forecast maintenance and other financial needs when completing reserve studies.

Whether drafting documents, managing communications, or analyzing data, the accessibility of GAI to streamline tasks is ever-present. With the right knowledge and discipline, directors and managers can appropriately engage with GAI to make protocol more efficient, creative, and tailored to their members. Despite all that GAI can do, only humans can build communities.

From Statute to Summons: How AB130 Impacts Community Association Litigation

Hannah I. Hughes, Esq.

Attorney

858.527.0111
Email
Practice: Civil Litigation

Share this article:

Since AB130’s enactment on July 1, 2025, this small bill has left community associations with a big question: how does this bill affect future litigation? For community associations, this bill is likely to fuel more disputes, increase pre-litigation friction, and ultimately drive more matters to the courtroom.

One of the most notable changes in AB130 is the reduction of allowable fines for common violations. Although intended to promote “fairness” and prevent what some legislators viewed as excessive penalties, the practical effect for community associations is very different. By lowering fines, AB130 unintentionally removes one of the most effective tools community associations have for achieving compliance with their Governing Documents—and in doing so, sets the stage for more violations, more disputes, and ultimately more litigation.

For better or for worse, fines work because they create consequences for those who fail to follow the Governing Documents. When owners know a violation will cost them a meaningful amount of money, they tend to comply more quickly. But with AB130 reducing fines, many violations will now be too minor to influence owner behavior, or the fine will be cheaper to ignore than to fix. In other words, AB130 now makes noncompliance with the Governing Documents a low-risk choice that will only cost $100 should an owner choose not to comply. When owners feel there is no downside to a violation, violations will increase—and with them, the disputes and enforcement actions that may ultimately end in litigation.

Because fines are now less effective in gaining owner compliance, boards may have no choice but to move from routine enforcement to seeking injunctive relief through litigation. Historically, fines have served as a pre-litigation buffer to encourage owner compliance because owners rarely want fines to accumulate. However, now that AB130 removes that buffer, community associations’ options for achieving compliance are reduced, and they will be forced into court sooner and more often.

Ironically, the reduced fines may create more unfairness than the fairness they were enacted to address. Reduced fines do not reduce conflict; instead, they reduce compliance by removing a key buffer in owner disputes. By removing this buffer, community associations can expect disputes to escalate more quickly and ultimately cost more as they head to the courtroom more often.

From Proposal to Policy: Navigating the Twenty-Eight-Day Review and Comment Period

Victoria R. Minor, Esq.

Attorney

858.527.0111
Email
Practices: Community Association Counsel 

Share this article:

Regularly reviewing and updating community rules and policies is one of the most effective ways a community association can promote clarity, consistency, and harmony within the association.  Over time, laws evolve, community needs shift, and previously well-intended rules may become outdated or impractical.  By proactively evaluating their operating procedures, boards can ensure their associations’ rules and policies remain legally compliant, reflect current best practices, and continue to support their communities’ long-term goals.

With that in mind, understanding the statutory process for adopting or amending common interest development association rules and policies is critical for boards to ensure effective and compliant governance.

California Civil Code section 4360 grants members of  an association a twenty-eight (28) day period to review and comment on most rules and rule amendments prior to their adoption.  This means, before  a board can formally vote to adopt a proposed operating rule or proposed policy, the board must first allow the members to review the proposed rule or policy and provide their questions and/or comments to the board.  

To begin this process, the board must provide written notice of the proposed rule change to all members at least twenty-eight (28) days before the date of the meeting whereat the board will consider and vote on the proposed rule or policy.  This notice must include the text of the proposed rule/policy, an explanation of the purpose and effect of the proposed rule/policy and the date, time, and location of the meeting whereat the board will consider and vote on the proposed rule/policy.  During this twenty-eight (28) day period, the members may review the proposed rule/policy and submit their comments on the proposed rule/policy to the board for its consideration.  

When considering comments received from the members, the board should keep in mind that while it must review and consider all comments received, it is not required by law to revise the proposed rule or policy in direct response to comments received.  Unless, of course, the comments identify aspects of the rule that would make the proposed rule/policy invalid or unenforceable, as further detailed in Civil Code section 4350.  For example, if the board receives a comment from a member identifying some aspect of the rule/policy that would conflict with governing law or the association’s governing documents, the board must revise the rule/policy to address this conflict.  Otherwise, after considering all comments received from the membership at an open board meeting, a board may choose to move forward with the proposed rule or policy as originally drafted.

After the twenty-eight (28) day comment period comes to a close, the board may vote to formally adopt the rule at an open board meeting.  Once the board has formally adopted a rule/policy, the board must provide the members with general notice of the rule change within fifteen (15) days after making the rule change.

Keep in mind that if your association’s governing documents require a longer than twenty-eight (28) day comment period, that longer period of time may apply despite the twenty-eight (28) day time period stated in Civil Code section 4360(a).  When considering adopting or amending a new rule or policy, it is recommended the board consult with the association’s legal counsel to ensure compliance with the above-mentioned statutory requirements and the association’s governing documents.  

Don’t Get Stuck with the Bill: Protect Your Association from Mechanics Liens

Jacquelyn E. Quinn, Esq.

Senior Attorney

858.527.0111
Email
Practices: Community Association Counsel | Commercial CID

Share this article:

A mechanics lien is a legal claim that contractors, subcontractors, laborers, or material suppliers can file against a property when they are not paid for work or materials provided. Typically, any person who works on the property under a contract—whether directly with the association or through a general contractor (i.e., material supplier)—may have lien rights. In California, this right is protected by statute to ensure that those who contribute to property improvements are compensated.

For community associations, mechanics liens can pose serious risks, especially when work is performed on common areas. A lien on the common area can impact and even prevent owners from selling or refinancing their properties. Even if the association itself has paid its direct contractor, a material supplier who is unpaid may still assert a lien against the common area property or, in some cases, against the individual owner’s separate property. Because of this, an association must take proactive measures to prevent liens from arising and to minimize exposure if one is filed.

Steps an Association Can Take to Protect Itself from Mechanics Liens

      1. Use Written Contracts with Clear Payment Terms:
        Every project, no matter how small, should be governed by a written contract. The written contract should include provisions that specify payment schedules, require lien releases before payments are issued, and require the contractor to indemnify the association and its members against liens that may be filed. The contract should also require the contractor to comply with all lien laws and to ensure that all subcontractors and suppliers are timely paid.
      2. Obtain and Verify Preliminary Notices:
        Any party supplying labor or materials for a project that is not in direct contract with the association must first serve a preliminary notice (often within 20 days of starting work), which informs the property owner that the subcontractor or supplier has provided, or will provide, goods and services to the property and could file a lien claim if they are not paid. If subcontractors and suppliers don’t provide the association with the notice, they lose the right to file a lien.

        An association should carefully keep track of all preliminary notices received. Oftentimes, however, preliminary notices are sent to the address on file for the association with the Secretary of State, which may be management’s primary office, not on site at the association. Therefore, the association may also wish to request a list of all parties supplying labor or materials to the project from the contractor. This allows the association to verify that each listed entity receives payment or provides a lien release before issuing progress or final payment to the contractor.

      3. Require Conditional and Unconditional Lien Releases Before Making Any Payment:
        Never make a progress or final payment without first obtaining the appropriate lien release(s) from the contractor and all known subcontractors and suppliers.
      4. Use Joint Checks When Appropriate:
        Issuing joint checks that are made payable to both the general contractor and subcontractor or supplier when a contractor has not submitted an unconditional lien release can help ensure that funds reach all parties with lien rights and reduce the risk of unpaid claims that can result in liens being filed against association property.
      5. Monitor Contractor Bonding and Insurance:
        When hiring for large projects, associations might consider requiring contractors provide a payment bond. A payment bond ensures that subcontractors and suppliers are paid, even if the general contractor fails to do so.
      6. Act Promptly if a Lien is Recorded:
        If a lien is filed, an association should consult with its legal counsel immediately. In many cases, the lien can be released by recording a release bond or by demonstrating that proper payments and releases were made. Quick action can prevent escalation and protect the association and its members’ interests. Please also note that Civil Code Section 4620, requires an association to provide individual notice to its members within 60 days of being served with a claim of lien for work performed on the common area.

Mechanics liens can create significant financial and administrative burdens for associations, even when the association has acted in good faith. By maintaining strong contractual safeguards, tracking preliminary notices, and always obtaining applicable lien releases before issuing a payment, an association can greatly reduce the likelihood of a lien being filed against its property.

Codes of Conduct for Association Volunteers

Emily A. Long, Esq.

Coachella Valley Office Managing Shareholder

858.527.0111
Email
Practices: Community Association Counsel | Civil Litigation

Share this article:

Generally, board members of common interest developments are volunteers dedicating their time, skills and energy to serve the communities within which they live. Indeed, without these director volunteers, community associations would be unable to properly function. Similarly, committee members are volunteers who work on specific projects within a community. Often, committee work is a valuable first experience which can entice a member to become more involved and to eventually run for the board. However, there is a steep learning curve upon entering the world of association governance.

In order to help board and committee members understand the association’s expectations for service, codes of conduct can be particularly helpful.  Not only do codes of conduct codify association expectations, they can also serve to educate board and committee members and help minimize association liability.  Boards might therefore consider adopting codes of conduct that cover the following topics, among others:

        • Prohibiting the acceptance of any gift, gratuity, favor, entertainment, loan, or any other item of monetary value by a board or committee member from a person who is seeking to obtain a contractual or other business or financial relationship with the association.
        • Clarifying that board and committee members may not engage in any writing, publishing, or speech that defames any other member of the board, committee, employee, or resident of the community.
        • Establishing that board and committee members may not knowingly misrepresent facts to the residents for the sole purpose of advancing a personal cause or influencing the residents.
        • Prohibiting board members from discussing sensitive and confidential matters discussed in executive session, outside of executive session, or with anyone who is not on the board (with the exception of management and association counsel).
        • Prohibiting board or committee members from seeking to have a contract implemented that has not been duly approved by the board.
        • Prohibiting board or committee member interference with an association contractor performing work.
        • Clarifying that board and committee members may not harass, threaten, or attempt through any means to control, instill fear or discriminate against any member of the Association, management company, service provider, or community resident.
        • Preventing interference by board and committee members with the system of management established by the board as a whole and the management company.
        • Reminding board members that they must operate as a board and do not have any individual authority unless it is specifically granted to them in writing by the board or the Association’s governing documents.

Often, codes of conduct may be adopted as rules of procedure by way of approval by the board at an open session meeting, rather than by following the rulemaking procedures spelled out in Civil Code section 4360. However, we encourage you to first speak with your association’s legal counsel to review your association’s governing documents and discuss your community’s particular needs prior to adopting such rules.

Enforceability of these codes of conduct is another important issue to consider when preparing draft rules. It is recommended that any code of conduct specifically list the consequences for a violation of the code of conduct.  Reasonable penalties for violation might include: public or private censure by the board, removal of an officer title, and/or removal from committee service by the board.  It is unlikely that violation of a code of conduct may result in unilateral removal of a board member by the board, but speak with your association counsel on this issue.

Is My Mic On? Concerns Surrounding Recording Board Meetings

Rhonda R. Goldblatt, Esq.

Senior Attorney

858.527.0111
Email
Practice: Community Association Counsel

Share this article:

Is My Mic On? Concerns Surrounding Recording Board Meetings

Association members may try to record board meetings. Such recording may even be surreptitious. However, there are concerns surrounding permitting the recording of board meetings of which boards and management should be aware.

First, recordings may serve as evidence in subsequent litigation. Association members who try to record board meetings may do so in order to compile such evidence to support their claim. Associations should think twice about fueling a member lawsuit for obvious reasons. A single stray remark may end up exposing an association to liability.

Second, those present at the meeting may be uncomfortable being recorded. A recording device may have a chilling effect on directors and management who are trying to conduct association business without worrying about the specter of potential future litigation.

The Davis-Stirling Act does not require board meetings to be recorded. California Penal Code section 632 in fact prohibits recording a confidential conversation without the consent of all parties. Subsection (a) of the statute provides in part:

A person who, intentionally and without the consent of all parties to a confidential communication, uses an electronic amplifying or recording device to eavesdrop upon or record the confidential communication, whether the communication is carried on among the parties in the presence of one another or by means of a telegraph, telephone, or other device, except a radio, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500) per violation, or imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or in the state prison, or by both that fine and imprisonment.

Boards may want to consider including a statement on meeting agendas that recording the meeting – via audio or video – is prohibited. Boards can also consider stating at the beginning of a meeting that recording is prohibited (and noting that statement in the meeting minutes). Doing so will help create a documentary record that any recording is nonconsensual per Section 632. This is important because under subsection (d) of the statute, evidence obtained as a result of eavesdropping upon or recording a confidential communication in violation of Section 632 is not admissible in a lawsuit. 

Finally, it is worth pointing out that Section 632 does not apply to the use of hearing aids and similar devices for “persons afflicted with impaired hearing” for the purpose of overcoming the impairment to permit hearing sounds ordinarily audible to the human ear. This caveat essentially brings those with impaired hearing to equity, by allowing them to hear what others do. 

For additional advice on this subject, please reach out to your friendly community association counsel.