Beyond Electronic Voting; Key 2025 Legislation Every HOA Manager Should Know

Senior Attorney 

858.527.0111
Email
Practices: Community Association Counsel 

Share this article:

While the primary focus of the residential community association management industry is AB 2159, which permits electronic voting, several other bills were signed into law in 2024 that managers should be aware of.

SB 900  

SB 900, which went into effect January 1, 2025, significantly amends Civil Code (“CC”) § 4775 to address the maintenance and repair of utility services in common interest developments. SB 900 also makes minor revisions to CC § 5550 and 5610. Specifically, SB 900 makes an association responsible for the repairs and replacement needed to restore interrupted utility services (i.e., gas, heat, water or electrical services) that begin in the common area even when the issue extends into a separate interest or exclusive use common area, unless the association’s CC&Rs expressly provide for a different allocation, or the utility provider or local government is required to perform the work.

SB 900 requires an association to commence the repair process necessary to restore utility service within 14 days of service interruption.

If an association has insufficient reserve funds to cover the needed utility work, SB 900 permits an association’s board to obtain a loan to cover these costs without a member vote. The board may also levy an emergency assessment to repay the loan. Like a board’s existing right to impose an emergency assessment under CC § 5610, before obtaining a loan, a board must pass a resolution containing written findings regarding the nature of the expenses and the insufficiency of reserve funding. This resolution must be distributed to the members via individual delivery with the notice of the emergency assessment. The association must also provide any other notices required by law or the association’s governing documents.

If a quorum of the board cannot meet within 14 days to address the repair process, then at the next duly noticed board meeting, the total number of directors in attendance shall constitute a quorum. If applicable, the meeting notice shall state that the board may meet with a reduced quorum.

The board may also vote to approve the work needed to restore the utility service by electronic means, including email. All records of the electronic vote constitute association records and are subject to member inspection for three years.

In the event an association fails to meet these SB 900 requirements, the association may be held liable for that failure, but individual board members may not be found liable.

An association is exempt from complying with SB 900 requirements if the association is located in an area affected by a federal, state or local state of disaster or emergency, provided the disaster or emergency materially affects the association’s ability to perform its utility repair responsibilities.

The legislature amended CC § 5550 to designate utility services as “major components” to the extent an association is obligated to repair or replace those lines by CC § 4775.

The legislature amended CC § 5610(b) to add operating costs as an extraordinary expense if health or safety hazards are discovered on site.

AB 2114

SB 326 (“The Balcony Bill”) established CC § 5551 as of January 1, 2020. Under CC § 5551, an association is, among other things, required to have a reasonably competent and diligent visual inspection of a random and statistically significant sample of the exterior elevated elements for which the association is responsible for maintaining or repairing at least once every nine years. Previously, only licensed architects and structural engineers were permitted to perform these inspections.

Effective immediately, AB 2114 amended CC § 5551 to permit licensed civil engineers to perform these inspections rather than limiting the inspections to architects and structural engineers.

AB 2460

AB 2460 amends 2023’s AB 1458, which provided that if an association requires a quorum for director and/or recall elections, the association must provide the membership with general notice of the date, time and location of the meeting at which the quorum will be determined, and a statement that the board may adjourn the meeting for at least 20 days if the association fails to achieve quorum. If an association does not reach quorum for a director election, the association may adjourn the meeting to tabulate the votes for a minimum of 20 days. Unless the association’s governing documents authorize a lower quorum, the quorum for the adjourned meeting drops to twenty percent (20%). General notice of the adjourned meeting must contain the following: (1) the date, time and location of the adjourned meeting, (2) the list of candidates, (3) a statement that the quorum requirement is reduced to 20% and (4) that the ballots will be opened if the 20% quorum requirement is reached. The association must provide this notice to members not less than 15 days prior to the adjourned meeting.

AB 2460, which went into effect January 1, 2025, does not substantively change the law. Rather, it clarifies the changes to CC § 5115 and Corporations Code § 7512 made last year by AB 1458. Specifically, AB 2460 further clarifies that the 20% quorum for board elections and the related notice requirements only apply to incorporated and unincorporated associations with governing documents that impose a quorum requirement of more than 20% for reconvened meetings to elect directors, that members can call for a reconvened meeting, and that the notice that must be provided to the members at least 15 days in advance of the meeting date refers to the reconvened meeting date. Finally, AB 2460 clarifies that 20% of an association’s members, voting in person, by proxy, or secret ballot will satisfy quorum for the election of directors at a reconvened meeting and that the ballots will be counted if quorum is reached.

Updates on The Corporate Transparency Act as of 3/5/2025

Managing Shareholder

858.527.0111
Email
Practices: Community Association Counsel 

Share this article:

ENFORCEMENT OF THE CORPORATE TRANSPARENCY ACT SUSPENDED

 

In a significant development for U.S. common interest developments, the U.S. Treasury Department (Treasury Department) issued a press release on March 2, 2025, clarifying its enforcement stance on the Corporate Transparency Act (Act).

The press release stated the Treasury Department will not enforce penalties or fines associated with the beneficial ownership information (BOI) reporting rule under the existing regulatory guidelines.  The press release also said the Treasury Department will refrain from enforcing any penalties or fines against U.S. citizens, domestic reporting companies, or their beneficial owners after the upcoming rule changes take effect.

To clarify this last point, the Treasury Department  explained  it will be “issuing a proposed rulemaking that will narrow the scope of the rule to foreign reporting companies only.  Treasury takes this step in the interest of supporting hard-working American taxpayers and small businesses and ensuring that the rule is appropriately tailored to advance the public interest.”

While the official rule is still forthcoming, this press release shows that the Treasury Department is moving toward tailoring the Act so that it does not apply to U.S. citizens or domestic reporting companies.  Once the official rule is implemented, it is anticipated the Act will no longer apply to domestic reporting companies, including common interest developments.

Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent stated, “This is a victory for common sense.”

This continues to be a developing issue and common interest development boards should anticipate updates as the official rule has not yet been implemented.

EFFORTS BY COMMUNITY ASSOCIATIONS INSTITUTE

The Community Associations Institute (CAI) has spent much of the past two years advocating for common interest developments.  CAI filed a lawsuit challenging the application of the Act on common interest developments and utilized lobbying and advocacy efforts in Washington D.C. to encourage Congress to repeal the Act, exempt common interest developments, or delay the first reporting date.  Epsten, APC thanks CAI for its diligent efforts to protect common interest developments.

Updates on The Corporate Transparency Act as of 2/19/2025

Managing Shareholder

858.527.0111
Email
Practices: Community Association Counsel 

Share this article:

 

CORPORATE TRANSPARENCY ACT REPORTING REQUIREMENTS REINSTATED

On February 17, 2025, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas stayed a nationwide injunction halting enforcement of the Corporate Transparency Act (Act) in Smith v. United States Department of Treasury. The Eastern District of Texas’ decision cited the recent Supreme Court of the United States’ Texas Top Cop Shop, Inc. v. McHenry—formerly, Texas Top Cop Shop v. Garland decision as precedent.

The Smith nationwide injunction was the last remaining order pausing beneficial ownership reporting requirements. The Eastern District of Texas’ decision in Smith means common interest developments which meet FinCEN’s “reporting company” definition must file a beneficial ownership information (BOI) report within the filing deadlines. Click here for more information to help you determine if your common interest development is a “reporting company.”

UPDATED DEADLINE TO FILE – 12:00 PM EASTERN, MARCH 21, 2025

On February 19, 2025, FinCEN issued an alert regarding the Act.  FinCEN stated that the decision by the Eastern District of Texas reinstated reporting requirements under the Act.  However,  the Department of the Treasury recognized  some reporting companies may need additional time to comply with reporting obligations, so FinCEN generally extended the deadline 30 calendar days to 12:00 pm Eastern, March 21, 2025.

If your association was previously given a later deadline by the Department of the Treasury, the later deadline should still be met. These extensions were granted for various reasons, including certain disaster relief extensions. However, for most reporting companies, the deadline to file beneficial owner information reports is March 21, 2025.

IS THERE STILL HOPE THE REQUIREMENTS WILL CHANGE BEFORE THE DEADLINE?

Status of CAI’s CTA Lawsuit, Lobbying, and Advocacy Efforts

As you may recall, the Community Associations Institute (CAI) filed a lawsuit challenging the application of the Act on common interest developments.  CAI requested a preliminary injunction, but that request was denied by a federal judge.  CAI appealed the denial and the government responded to the appeal on February 7, 2025. CAI’s response is due at the end of February.

In addition, CAI is continuing to utilize lobbying and advocacy efforts in Washington D.C. to encourage Congress to repeal the Act, exempt common interest developments from the Act’s reporting requirements, or delay the first reporting date.  H.R. 736 and S. 505 are two bills that were recently introduced to seek a one-year delay of the CTA reporting requirements.

If you are interested in assisting with CAI’s efforts, visit CAI’s Action Center for information about how to contact your  Congress person and Senators to ask them to support H.R. 736 and S. 505.

This continues to be a developing issue. Common interest development boards should continue to remain informed and should be prepared to file any required reports prior to FinCEN’s March 21, 2025 deadline.

 


 

*This article is an update to the previous versions:

 

Safeguards for Volunteer Directors

Community associations are governed by boards of directors made up of volunteers. The role of these volunteers is crucial to keeping community associations functioning, but potential volunteers are often dissuaded by their fear of potential liability. This is a misconception. California law has evolved considerably to provide a robust framework of shields for volunteer directors. This article explores the statutory protections, insurance options, and governing document provisions that together safeguard volunteer directors, ensuring they can perform their essential roles without undue personal risk.

What is a volunteer?
Corporations Code section 5239(b) defines “volunteer” as “the rendering of services without compensation.” “Compensation” is further defined as “remuneration whether by way of salary, fee, or other consideration for services rendered.” However, the Corporations Code specifically allows for the payment of per diem, mileage, or other reimbursement expenses. While it may be tempting to offer perks to get owners in the community to participate on the Board, community association Boards should be careful to avoid offering any perks that could be considered compensation. For example, assigned parking spaces could arguably be consideration for services rendered as parking spaces have a monetary value.

Statutory Protections
Public Policy
Corporations Code section 5047.5(a) addresses the services of directors and officers of nonprofit corporations as “critical to the efficient conduct and management of the public service and charitable affairs of the people of California.” This Corporations Code section also codifies as California public policy the state’s decision “to provide incentive and protection to the individuals who perform these important functions.”

Business Judgment Rule
Corporations Code section 7231 establishes the Business Judgment Rule which protects directors from personal liability when the directors perform their duties in good faith, in a manner such directors believe to be in the best interests of the corporation, and with such care, including reasonable inquiry, as an ordinarily prudent person in a similar position would in similar circumstances.

Civil Code Section 5800
Civil Code section 5800 provides additional protections for volunteer directors who own no more than two (2) homes within the community. Volunteer directors and officers are not personally liable in excess of the community association’s insurance coverage so long as the community association has maintained the minimum levels of general liability and D&O insurance as required by law and the volunteer directors and officers’ actions were performed in good faith, within the scope of their duties, and were not willful, wanton, or grossly negligent.

Directors and Officers Insurance
Directors and Officers Insurance, commonly referred to as D&O insurance, protects both the community association from liability and volunteer directors and officers from personal liability for errors and omissions made by directors and officers while they were serving on the Board. All community associations are required by law to maintain minimum levels of D&O insurance.

Governing Documents
In addition to statutory protections and D&O insurance, volunteer directors may also find additional protections in their community association’s CC&Rs and/or Bylaws. Some, but not all, CC&Rs and Bylaws contain indemnity provisions that offer protections for directors and officers against their negligence and omissions. Since every community association has unique CC&Rs and Bylaws, each community association should consult with their legal representation to see whether there are protections for the volunteer directors.

Conclusion
Potential Board members should not let fear of personal liability keep them from running for the Board. So long as their Association retains the adequate amount of D&O insurance and they perform their duties in good faith, in a manner they believe to be in the best interests of the corporation, and with such care, including reasonable inquiry, as an ordinarily prudent person in a similar position would in similar circumstances, California law, D&O insurance, and potentially even the governing documents will provide protections against personal liability.

Another Successful Legal Symposia is in the books!

#ICYMI [In case you missed it]

Another Successful Epsten, APC Legal Symposia is in the books!

Jen Serrano

Senior Marketing Manager

858.527.0111
Email

Share this article:

 

Photography and editing by Leah Eklof, Marketing Assistant


(From left to right) Pejman D. Kharrazian, Esq., Rhonda R. Goldblatt, Esq., Kieran J. Purcell, Esq., William S. Budd, Esq., Emily A. Long, Esq., and Susan M. Hawks McClintic, Esq., at the Coachella Valley Symposium.

It’s a wrap! We had another successful Symposia season and are thankful to everyone who attended. Here is a quick recap of what happened at our 2024 Symposia in case you couldn’t make it. Overall, 900+ board members, community managers, and industry partners attended our Coachella Valley and San Diego Symposia. We delivered timely, relevant, and up-to-date legal education impacting community associations.

Our Symposia fosters collaboration and new networking opportunities for our attendees. They can ask general legal-related questions to one of our attorneys, network with exhibitors, and build meaningful connections with fellow professionals. Epsten, APC, continues to be at the forefront of legal education for community associations, and its Symposia are some of the most attended community association events in Southern California. It is also important to highlight that our event offers 2 CEUs from the California Association of Community Managers (CACM) and 5 CEUs that complete the requirement for the CMCA certification offered by the Community Association Managers International Certification Board (CAMICB).

Interview with Marysia Leu from Keystone Pacific: “I’ve been in management for 33 years, and I attend every year because it’s well worth it for any association manager or assistant manager or even a realtor that does leasing at community properties. It’s great information!”

(From left to right) Shareholder Pejman D. Kharrazian, Esq. and Senior Attorney Emily A. Long, Esq. presenting Case Law Update at the Coachella Valley event.

By popular demand, our content does a deep dive into the legislative updates based on the annual Bills signed by the Governor, as well as the key case law from the year relevant to community associations. Here are some quick links to the Statutes – New or Newly Amended. You may find these on our website under the Laws & Statutes tab / Civil Codes:

California Civil Code (Civ. Code)

California Civil Code (Civ. Code): Davis-Stirling Act

California Corporations Code (Corp. Code)

(Left) Shareholder and new CAI-San Diego President Susan M. Hawks McClintic, Esq. and (right) Mike Cruz, Administrative Assistant, holding the famous and acclaimed Epsten, APC 2025 Community Association Law Resource Book

In addition, Kieran J. Purcell, Esq. spoke about updates on The Corporate Transparency Act (CTA). With all the back-and-forth on the CTA, board members and managers have really had to stay up to date with the most recent updates. Our firm has been closely tracking the CTA, and you can click here to sign up for our CTA Legal Alerts.

Kieran J. Purcell, Esq., Managing Shareholder of Epsten, APC, speaking to over 600 attendees at our San Diego Symposium.

Kieran J. Purcell, Esq., and Susan M. Hawks McClintic, Esq., also spoke on the 2024 Legislative Update. They discussed Bill AB 2114, which allows civil engineers to be added to the qualified list of inspectors who conduct mandatory inspections of balconies. Both attorneys also spoke on matters regarding elections, SB 900 on repairs and maintenance, and other relevant updates in the community association law.

Interview with Dominique Albrecht, Chief Administrative Officer for Rancho Santa Fe Association: “Today we loved the sessions, such great information on new case law, the latest and greatest on what’s happening on the legislative front and then just really awesome breakout sessions where we could hear from others in the industry about what their facing and get great advice as well.”

BREAK IT DOWN > Legal Discussions

Content tailored to Community Managers and Board Members

You may find your next brilliant idea for your community association at one of our Legal Discussions. Attendees get to share thoughts and concerns directly with our attorneys on matters such as insurance, senior communities and fair housing, amending governing documents, litigation, and elections & recalls (Election Process Timeline and Election by Acclamation Process Timeline), and meetings.

Industry partners harness the power of new products, services and expertise for community associations

Symposia exhibitors have the unique opportunity to showcase their company’s products, services, and expertise to a targeted audience of community leaders and industry professionals. This event allows for valuable networking, strengthening connections, and fostering new partnerships and business opportunities. Our diversified exhibitors are ahead of the game providing attendees great giveaways and special offers to Symposia attendees. This year,  vendor categories included:

Accounting, Architect, Backflow Services, Bank, Construction Managements, Door/Gate, FHA, Foundation Repair, Furniture, General Contractor, Inspector of Elections, Insurance, Landscape, Leak Detection, Maintenance, Meter, Painting, Pest Control, Pool, Refuse, Reserve Study, Restoration, Roofing, Security, Solar, Towing, Tree Care. We are always in search of new types of vendors to join our repertoire.

If you are looking to become a sponsor for next year, click here to connect with us.

*Disclaimer: due to event capacity and fairness to our clients, Epsten, APC is unable to accept management companies or other community association law firms to exhibit at our event.

A Big THANK YOU!

 A huge shout out to our beverage partner CM2 & Associates for providing beverages for our San Diego Symposium.

San Diego Beverage sponsor, Annie Wyland from CM2, Inc. networking with prospects.

This event is also possible thanks to our Premier and Standard sponsors at both San Diego and Coachella Valley, we thank you! Our 2024 Symposia season could not have happened without you. To find out more about our exhibitors and the services they offer, check out the links below.

Coachella Valley San Diego

(PREMIER)

(STANDARD)

  • AMS Paving, Inc.
  • Banc of California
  • California Association of Community Managers (CACM)
  • C.L. Sigler & Associates, Inc.
  • Click2Bind Insurance Services, Inc.
  • Conserve LandCare
  • Frazier Pest Control
  • Harvest Landscape Enterprises, Inc.
  • Newman Certified Public Accountants, PC
  • NEXTIER Insurance Services
  • NLB Consulting Election Services
  • NPG Asphalt
  • O’Connell Landscape Maintenance
  • PatioShoppers
  • SCT Reserve Services
  • Sherwin Williams
(PREMIER)

(STANDARD)

  •  Accurate Termite & Pest Control
  • Bald Eagle Security Services, Inc.
  • Banc of California
  • Berg Insurance Agency in Partnership with LaBarre/Oksnee
  • California Sub-Meters
  • Click2Bind Insurance Services, Inc.
  • Enhanced Landscape Management
  • First Citizens Bank
  • Four Seasons Tree Care
  • Gemini Insurance Agency
  • Global Disposal
  • Harvest Landscape Enterprises, Inc.
  • Kirk Miller Insurance Agency, Inc.
  • LaBahn’s Landscaping
  • McCormick-JWC Construction & Consulting
  • MeterNet, LLC
  • NPG Asphalt
  • O’Connell Landscape Maintenance
  • Precision Construction & Painting
  • Premier Roofing CA, Inc.
  • Proform Interiors
  • Rayco Exteriors
  • SCT Reserve Services
  • Sherwin Williams Paint
  • Southern Cross Property Consultants

To Our Staff and Attorneys…

This wouldn’t be a proper recap without thanking our staff and attorneys who helped put on the symposia events. Here are just some faces behind the scenes working hard.

>> Click here for a Coachella Valley recap video

>> Click here for San Diego recap video

>> Click here for a behind the scenes video

Looking Ahead: 2025 San Diego & Coachella Valley

Participants left with new knowledge, lasting friendships and connections, and a renewed sense of energy to tackle problems in 2025. Nevertheless, a new Symposium season will be arriving soon. If you are looking for more information for next year’s symposia, click here to be updated when we release dates.

Speakers at San Diego Symposium from left to right; Jillian M. Wright, Esq., Kieran J. Purcell, Esq., Susan M. Hawks McClintic, Esq., Pejman D. Kharrazian, Esq., Jon H. Epsten, Esq., Rhonda R. Goldblatt, Esq., Jacquelyn E. Quinn, Esq., and Joseph A. Sammartino, Esq.

Updates on The Corporate Transparency Act as of 1/30/2025

Managing Shareholder

858.527.0111
Email
Practices: Community Association Counsel 

Share this article:

CORPORATE TRANSPARENCY ACT REPORTING REQUIREMENTS REMAIN PAUSED

 

On January 23, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court stayed a nationwide injunction halting enforcement of the Corporate Transparency Act (Act) in Texas Top Cop Shop, Inc. v. McHenry—formerly, Texas Top Cop Shop v. Garland. This decision appears at first glance to require that common interest developments comply with the Act.  However, Texas Top Cop Shop is not the only case currently making its way through the judicial system.  A  different federal judge in Texas imposed a similar nationwide injunction in Smith v. U.S. Department of the Treasury.  The Smith nationwide injunction still remains in place.

On January 24, 2025, FinCEN issued an alert confirming that despite the U.S. Supreme Court’s action in Texas Top Cop Shop, while the Smith order remains in place, reporting companies are not currently required to file beneficial ownership information (BOI) reports with FinCEN and are not subject to liability for failure to do so. That said, FinCEN reiterated that reporting companies may continue to voluntarily submit beneficial ownership information reports.

At present, the Smith nationwide injunction means the reporting requirements for applicable common interest developments are currently “on hold” and thus applicable common interest developments are not currently subject to liability for failure to meet filing deadlines.

Common interest development boards should continue to remain informed and prepared to act quickly to meet filing deadlines as needed.  Our office will continue to provide updates as they arise.

Status of CAI’s CTA Lawsuit, Lobbying and Advocacy Efforts

As you may be aware, the Community Associations Institute (CAI) filed a lawsuit challenging the application of the Act on common interest developments.  CAI requested a preliminary injunction but that request was denied by a federal judge.  CAI appealed and the government’s response to CAI’s appeal is due on January 31, 2025.

In addition, CAI is utilizing lobbying and advocacy efforts in Washington D.C. to encourage legislators to either repeal the Act or exempt common interest developments from the Act’s reporting requirements. H.R. 425 and S. 100 are two bills that were introduced to repeal the Act.

If you are interested in assisting with CAI’s efforts, visit CAI’s Action Center for information about how to contact your Members of Congress and Senators to ask them to support H.R. 425 and S. 100.

For additional information and updates regarding the Act and CAI’s efforts to repeal the Act or exempt applicable common interest developments visit www.caionline.org/CTA.

Five Strategies for Better Community Association Communication

Share this article:

Community associations benefit from an informed, educated membership. With that in mind, please find five strategies for improving community association communication below:

1. Check Your Calendar. Community associations are required to distribute various documents from time to time, including annual budgets, policy disclosures, ballots and more. Association governing documents also typically require holding various events, such as annual membership meetings, regular board meetings, and the like. Trying to keep track of it all can be dizzying. Therefore, it is helpful to calendar relevant deadlines and events in an automated, digital system, to help ensure that member communications go out on time.

2. Preferences Matter. Civil Code section 4041 requires associations to solicit members’ preferred delivery method for receiving certain notices on an annual basis. Members have the option of receiving notices via a mailing address and/or a valid email address. Members can also provide the contact information of their legal representative. Associations must in turn deliver certain notices in accordance with members’ preferred delivery method. Members’ entitlement to select their preferred delivery method, in conjunction with different distribution requirements for different types of notices (i.e., general versus individual delivery) can make life complicated for managers. Again, automation can help, from software programs that either track member preferences or allow those preferences to be logged and changed easily, to spreadsheets that keep member information organized. Associations can also regularly remind owners of their entitlement to receive association notices via email, which many members may prefer for ease of access and may in turn reduce the association’s administrative burden.

3. Be Wary of Social Media. Associations might view social media as an easy, low effort means of distributing information to members. However, if a social media platform allows members to comment and post content, associations may in turn be forced to constantly monitor that platform for divisive or defamatory content. Therefore, one-sided association communication mechanisms like email blasts and newsletters that do not allow members to reply all, post, or comment may be preferable.

4. Prioritize Appropriately. Members frequently communicate with their associations about various concerns, from maintenance issues to complaints about neighbors. It is not uncommon for a minority of members in a community to communicate a lot, sending the association emails, making telephone calls, and speaking at board meetings. However, boards have a fiduciary obligation to act in the best interests of the entire community, not just a single member. As such, while boards should listen carefully to member concerns, boards must also triage and address member concerns according to the needs of the entire community. That may mean other pressing needs take priority.

5. Delivery is Everything. Members sometimes send angry, volatile communications to association representatives, and it can be extremely tempting to respond in kind. However, written communication can last forever, and non-privileged correspondence can easily become an exhibit in a subsequent lawsuit. Therefore, it may be wise to pause before replying and imagine a judge or jury as the audience of any given communication rather than the actual recipient. Associations must be the adult in the room, and a professional, measured tone is always best.

Wishing and Hoping Won’t Make It So: Colyear II and its Impacts on Older Planned Communities

Last year gave us an interesting case in the form of the second Colyear case, Colyear v. Rolling Hills Comm. Ass’n. of Rancho Palos Verdes (2024) 100 Cal.App.5th 110.  And this one resulted in a major loss to the Association—rejecting the association’s attempt to enforce a tree-trimming covenant and the resultant $1.3 million dollars in attorneys fees awarded to the prevailing homeowner. The interesting part of the case, though, is what is has to say on the limits of a developer’s ability to create a ‘master planned community,’ and the disastrous effects of careless drafting in the annexation process.

In a nutshell, until around 1980, developers seeking to subdivide and sell a large, planned community generally recorded an initial declaration of CC&Rs, describing some (or all, in some cases) of the property envisioned to constitute the future, built-out community.  Then, new tracts were made subject to a second set of CC&Rs, which might or might not incorporate by reference the original declaration.  Today, the developer generally records a “Master Declaration,” which (1) identifies all the property which may become subject to the Master Declaration in the future, and (2) provides for the “annexation” of portions of that property, over time, to the Master Declaration (along with possible additional restrictions tailored to the newer properties), thus assuring that the Master Declaration governs the added tracts.  But, Rolling Hills Community Association (“Rolling Hills”) was created in the mid-1930s, and therein lies the root of the problem.

When the developer began construction in 1936 it recorded a declaration of restrictions (“Declaration 150” [Original Declaration”]) which contained, amongst other provisions, a tree-trimming requirement.  This Original Declaration also provided that other tracts would be subject to the provisions of “a Declaration of Restrictions” [emphasis added].   The Original Declaration did NOT state that the annexed properties would be subject to the Original Declaration.  Neither did the Original Declaration provide the legal description of properties which were to be annexed. Some of the annexed tracts did have a tree-trimming covenant, some (including Colyear’s) did NOT contain such a covenant.  To further confuse matters, some of the annexation declarations WITH the covenant were recorded after a series of annexation declarations that did NOT contain the covenant.

The Association grappled with the inconsistencies between the Original Declaration, and the various declarations of the annexed tracts, for 60 years.  It was generally apparent that entirety of the Original Declaration (including the tree-trimming covenant) might not be enforceable against some, but not all, the annexed tracts.   First, the Original Declaration did not identify those tracts as subject to its terms, and second, some of the declarations of annexation did not specifically “incorporate by reference” all the terms and conditions in the Original Declaration.  There were tantalizing references in the Original Declaration suggesting it was intended to be the kind of “master declaration” we see today, such as describing the document as “a General Plan” for development of Rolling Hills, and a statement that the Association had the power to enforce provisions of those subsequent tracts’ CC&Rs, but the Original Declaration  did not expressly identify Colyear’s tract, nor did Colyear’s declaration expressly incorporate by reference the Original Declaration.  And that meant the tree trimming covenant could not be enforced against Colyear’s lot.

The Association tried to argue that Colyear must have known about the Original Declaration, since his declaration referred to the Original Declaration (“constructive notice.”)  The Court was having none of it.   First, Colyear’s title report did not list the Original Declaration as binding his lot.   And, although Colyear’s declaration mentioned the Original Declaration, it did not “expressly incorporate by reference the restrictions found in the [Original Declaration.]”  Other annexed tracts DID expressly incorporate by reference the provisions of the Original Declaration, just not Colyear’s tract CC&Rs.  This in turn meant the portions of the Original Declaration enforceable against the various tracts changed depending on the exact language of the annexation declarations.  The appellate court quoted the trial court with approval:  “…To the extent a crazy quilt exists, it is a byproduct of the method by which [the developer] and [the Association] expanded this community.’  Ibid. at 124.

What should the Association have done to make the tree-trimming covenant effective against Colyear’s lot, avoiding the “crazy quilt” situation where some lots are covered by particular provisions, and others are not?  It could have sought either to amend the Original Declaration to specifically add the additional lots, or to amend Colyear’s tract declaration to incorporate the tree trimming language from the Original Declaration.  The record indicates the association considered doing this, until it concluded such an amendment was not likely to pass, or at least, not without considerable effort and cost.  What the association DID do was to issue several “resolutions” addressing the issue, some of which simply asserted the tree-trimming provision DID apply to the annexed tracts, despite a well-documented record of internal ‘back and forth’ on whether the Original Declaration’s tree trimming covenant did apply to the annexed tract.  As the court noted, however, a resolution is not a CC&R amendment.


Takeaways?

        • If your association was built before 1980 or so, and includes tracts annexed after the original declaration was recorded, look over the annexation declarations to make sure that all relevant covenants (for example, architectural covenants, noise control, view protections) are either spelled out explicitly in all tracts, or incorporated by reference—specifically—restrictions set forth in other declarations.
        • Before enforcing a covenant against an owner in an annexed tract, make sure the covenant you seek to enforce unquestionably applies to the lot in question. It’s helpful to look over a title report for a lot in the tract in question, if an owner is willing to share it.
        • If you have doubts after reviewing the governing documents as to the applicability of the covenant in question, consider whether to attempt a CC&R amendment, to avoid the “crazy quilt” result in the Colyear case.
        • It’s unlikely that adopting a rule requiring tree trimming on all lots would have sufficed in this case, because of the differences in the CC&R language in the various tracts. As we know, a rule must be consistent with the CC&Rs.  And while a rule might flesh out vague maintenance guidelines (and thus be appropriate), given the notoriety of these inconsistencies in the Rancho Palos Verdes community, an owner in one of the tracts without such a requirement could easily argue that had the developer intended to encumber HIS lot with such a restriction, it could easily have done so, but did not—an inference that the developer intended NO tree trimming covenant.

When In Doubt, Check It Out: Homeowners’ Rights to Inspect Association Records

In California, homeowners and members of homeowners associations (HOAs) have specific rights to inspect and copy association records. These rights are established under various sections of the California Civil Code and the California Corporations Code.

Under California Civil Code Section 5205, association records must be made available for inspection and copying by any member or their designated representative.  The records should be accessible at the association’s business office or another agreed-upon location within the common interest development.  If no agreement is reached, the association can deliver copies of the records to the member. Cal. Civ. Code §5205.

However, like many things in life, the inspection of records comes at a cost.  The association may charge for the direct and actual costs of copying and mailing the documents, and for the time involved in redacting certain information, up to specified limits (an amount not in excess of ten dollars ($10) per hour, and not to exceed two hundred dollars ($200) total per written request).  Cal. Civ. Code §5205(g).

 

What Records Can Be Inspected?

Members have the right to inspect records for the current fiscal year and the previous two fiscal years. Cal. Civ. Code §5210(a)(1).  Minutes of member and board meetings are permanently subject to inspection. Cal. Civ. Code §5210(a)(2).

Members also have the right to inspect and copy membership lists so long as a written demand is made upon the association to do so.  Cal Corp Code § 8330.  Membership lists are records maintained by the association which include names, property addresses, mailing addresses, and email addresses of members that have not opted out of providing such information.  Cal. Civ. Code §5200(a)(9).  Once the written demand to inspect the membership list has been made, the association then has five business days to make the membership list available for inspection and copying.  Cal Corp. Code § 8330

However, certain information may be withheld or redacted by the association. This includes information likely to lead to identity theft or fraud, privileged information, and records that compromise individual privacy. Cal. Civ. Code §5215.  Rather than providing a requesting member a copy of the membership list, Corporations Code Section 8330(c) allows the association to provide the requesting member an alternative method of contacting other members.  Additionally, the use of association records for commercial purposes or any purpose not related to a member’s interest is prohibited. Cal. Civ. Code §5230.

 

What If The Association Withholds Access To Records?

If an association unreasonably withholds access to records, the member can bring an action to enforce their rights.  Courts may award reasonable costs and expenses, including reasonable attorney’s fees to the member, and may impose a civil penalty of up to $500 for each denied request.  Cal. Civ. Code §5235(a).

 

Conclusion  

In summary, California law provides robust rights for homeowners to inspect and copy HOA records, with specific provisions to ensure transparency while protecting sensitive information. These rights are enforceable through legal action if necessary, ensuring that members can access the information they need while maintaining privacy and security.

photo of one hundred dollar bills

Understanding the Fees and Costs of Superior Court Litigation

When a community association ends up in court, it can be a costly process. Sometimes community associations go to court to protect their rights and the rights of the community. Examples of these lawsuits are typically to enforce the governing documents or to enforce other contractual rights. Other times, community associations are brought into court because they have been sued. Regardless of the merits of the case and regardless of which side of a case the community association is on (plaintiff or defendant), fees and costs can add up very quickly.

The Process of Litigation


Litigation refers to the process of taking legal action in court. When a community association files a lawsuit, it is essentially asking the court to enforce a rule or decision a homeowner has violated. This can include things like unpaid dues, violations of the CC&Rs (such as illegal modifications to property or nuisances), or failure to follow community guidelines.


Litigation typically starts when the community association files a complaint in Superior Court, the court that handles major civil cases in California. Before going to court, the community association usually sends notices or warnings to the homeowner, letting them know that they are violating the rules. If a community association (or member) intends to file a lawsuit solely for declaratory or injunctive relief (asking the court to decide the rights and duties of the parties and/or seeking an injunction to compel the defendant to do, or refrain from doing, something) the potential plaintiff must first offer formal Alternative Dispute Resolution (“ADR”) which typically takes the form of mediation. If the homeowner doesn’t comply (or refuses to participate in ADR), the community association may move forward with a lawsuit.

Costs Involved in Litigation


There are several categories of costs involved when an association decides to pursue litigation. These can include:

Court Fees: To start a lawsuit in Superior Court, the plaintiff must pay a filing fee. This fee varies depending on the type of case and the amount of money involved, but Superior Court cases are typically around $500 or a little more. Each defendant in the case will owe a similar amount of money to the court as a first appearance fee. After the first appearance, each filing with the court – briefs, case management statements, ex parte applications, by way of a few of the more common examples – will have a filing fee, ranging from $20 to $100 or more.

Attorneys’ Fees: Probably the single biggest cost for a community association involved in litigation will be attorneys’ fees. Whether or the plaintiff or defense side of a case, a community association will probably need to retain a lawyer to represent it in court; the exceptions are small claims cases (attorneys are not allowed) and cases in which the community association is being sued and insurance defense counsel is provided by its insurance company. The lawyers’ job includes preparing documents, attending court hearings, propounding and responding to written discovery, taking depositions, attending mediation, negotiating settlements, and making legal arguments on behalf of the community association. Attorneys typically charge by the hour, and hourly rates depend on the lawyer’s experience, the complexity of the case, and the location where the association is located. In California, attorneys typically charge between $400 and $500 per hour or more.

While litigation can be expensive, under the Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act, in lawsuits involving the enforcement of governing documents, the winning party may recover its attorneys’ fees. If the community association wins a case against an owner to force compliance with a rule, the community association can ask the court for its legal fees. On the flip side, if the owner wins, they may be able to recover their legal fees from the community association. Attorney’s fees incurred in Alternative Dispute Resolution (“ADR”) can be included in the fees awarded even though it is typically before a lawsuit is formally filed.

In lawsuits that do not involve the enforcement of the governing documents, the general rule is that each side pays its own attorneys’ fees. There are a few exceptions to this rule, including breach of contract lawsuits in which the contract has an attorneys’ fees provision. Another exception are causes of action that have a specific right to attorneys’ fees under California law, such as some employment claims and bad faith lawsuits against insurance companies. The possibility of recovering – or not recovering – attorneys’ fees under is an important factor for parties to consider. It provides an incentive for owners to follow the rules, as they could end up paying the community association’s legal fees, as well as their own. It also gives community associations the ability to recover some of their costs if they need to go to court to enforce the rules. Owners should be aware that they could be held responsible for paying legal fees if they are found to be in the wrong. This can be a very significant financial burden, so it is important all parties understand their rights and responsibilities under the law.

Discovery Costs: Discovery is the process whereby both parties investigate the case as completely as possible on their own, and also request and exchange information from each other before trial. This is done by asking written questions that are answered under penalty of perjury, requesting documents, taking depositions (questions asked orally that are answered under oath), and investigating and gathering evidence. Discovery can be a time-consuming and expensive part of litigation, especially if there are a lot of documents to review or witnesses to interview. The community association may also need to hire experts or investigators to assist with the case, adding to the overall cost.

Other Related Expenses: In addition to filing fees, there likely will be other costs, such as charges for having subpoenas served on third parties, copying costs for records that are produced, and documents served personally on other parties. There also will be court reporter fees both for court hearings and for depositions. These costs quickly add up, especially if the case is lengthy or complicated.

Appeals: If either party is unhappy with the court or jury’s decision, they may appeal. Appeals can be costly because they involve additional legal work, including preparing legal briefs and attending appellate court hearings.

Considerations Before Litigating


Because of the potential costs involved, community associations should carefully consider whether litigation is the best option. Pursuing a court action should typically be a last resort after most, if not all, other attempts to resolve the issue have failed, including sending letters, holding hearings, Internal Dispute Resolution (“IDR”) and ADR. If a dispute does go to court, even if the community association wins, the process can still be expensive and time-consuming, even if attorneys’ fees are recoverable. Lawsuits can be divisive within community associations because the parties live (owners) and work (management) near each other. Additionally, witnesses and others who may become tangentially involved may feel unintended awkwardness or pressures.

It is not feasible to predict with any certainty how much a lawsuit will cost because it depends largely on how the other side prosecutes (or defends) the lawsuit. Some litigants and their attorneys can be very aggressive and run up costs.

Conclusion


Litigating in Superior Court can be a costly process for community associations. Some of that cost may be offset through the possible recovery of attorneys’ fees. To minimize costs, both community associations and owners should carefully weigh the costs and benefits of pursuing litigation and explore all options for resolving disputes before going to court. By understanding the costs and fees as well as the process involved, everyone can make more-informed decisions about how to handle disputes in their communities.