Home Community

Automated License Plate Reader Cameras and Mandatory Policies

Emily A. Long, Esq.

Coachella Valley Office Managing Shareholder

858.527.0111
Email
Practices: Community Association Counsel | Civil Litigation

Share this article:

Flock cameras and other Automated License Plate Reader (“ALPR”) cameras have been used for 10 years or more by cities and law enforcement. More recently, ALPR cameras have become popular in community associations due to the cameras becoming more affordable, smaller, and easier to install. As to community associations, ALPRs allow for easy entry into gated communities by capturing still images of a vehicle’s license plate, not video, that are extracted by artificial intelligence for cataloging and retrieval purposes and allow access to residents if on an approved list. Pictures also may include the make, year, model, and color of a vehicle. Depending on the angle of the camera, the vehicle’s occupants also may be discernible.

In California, the use of ALPRs is governed by Civil Code sections 1798.90.5-1798.90.55, which require that all persons operating an ALPR system maintain reasonable security procedures and practices to protect ALPR information from unauthorized access, destruction, use, modification, or disclosure. “Persons” include an “association” or “corporation” under the statute, meaning that community associations are required to maintain these security procedures required under law.

Civil Code section 1798.90.51(b)(2) also requires community associations and other ALPR operators to implement a usage and privacy policy in order to ensure that the collection, use, maintenance, sharing, and dissemination of ALPR information is consistent with respect for individuals’ privacy and civil liberties. This policy must address various enumerated subjects, including the authorized purposes for using the ALPR system and collecting ALPR information; a description of how the ALPR system will be monitored to ensure the security of the information and compliance with applicable privacy laws; the purposes of, process for, and restrictions on, the sale, sharing, or transfer of ALPR information to other persons; and the length of time ALPR information will be retained. The policy must be made available to the public in writing, and, if the ALPR operator has a website, the usage and privacy policy shall be posted conspicuously on the community association’s or other operator’s website.

In the 1st District Court of Appeal case, Bartholomew v. Parking Concepts, Inc., 118 Cal. App. 5th 438, Brendan Bartholomew sued Parking Concepts, Inc. alleging that it automatically collected his license plate information when Bartholomew parked his vehicle in its parking garage without implementing and making publicly available a policy regarding the collection and use of the data collected in violation of Civil Code §§ 1798.90.5-1798.90.55.

The Court agreed that the collection and use of Bartholomew’s license plate data without implementing a statutorily required privacy policy, constituted harm in and of itself. There was no need for Bartholomew to prove damages in that Parking Concepts illegally shared Bartholomew’s license plate data or used it for any particular purpose.As a result, if your community uses ALPR cameras and does not have a privacy policy that is accessible to community residents on your website, the association should work with its ALPR vendor and/or community association legal counsel to prepare and adopt such a privacy policy.

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.

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.

Ensuring a Smooth Transition: Best Practices for Changing Management Companies

Jillian M. Wright, Esq.

Shareholder

858.527.0111
Email
Practice: Community Association Counsel

Share this article:

Ensuring a Smooth Transition: Best Practices for Changing Management Companies

*Article originally published in CAI-SD Community Insider Magazine, Summer 2025

Switching community management companies is a major undertaking for any community association. A smooth transition requires careful planning, forethought, clear communication, and attention to legal and operational details. Without proper preparation, a change in management can disrupt financial operations, delay maintenance, and create confusion among the association’s homeowners and vendors.

To ease the management transition, associations should focus on five key areas: (1) strategically timing the transition; (2) communicating with the outgoing management company; (3) preparing for the transition; (4) ensuring proper records transfer; and (5) notifying homeowners of necessary updates.

Timing the Transition Strategically

Management contracts often have termination clauses and required notice periods that must be adhered to before the association can terminate their current management company. A termination outside of the delineated termination provisions or notice periods may be invalid, subject to monetary penalties, and/or subject to legal action by the management company. If the board has concerns regarding a potential breach of contract or would like to transition to new management, we recommend consulting with the association’s legal counsel prior to taking any action.

Note that the timing of management transitioning can significantly impact the association’s operations, so the board should endeavor to schedule the transition at a time that minimizes disruption and aligns with the association’s financial and operational cycles. For example, transitioning towards the end of an association’s fiscal year may jeopardize the timely mailing of the association’s annual board report, annual policy statement…etc. Changing management companies during significant maintenance projects, elections, or community-wide events may also unnecessarily complicate the transition, create delays, and lead to potential unwanted liabilities for the association.

Communicating With The Outgoing Management Company

Once the board has executed a contract with its new management company and reviewed the parameters of termination for its outgoing management company, the next step is to formally provide notice of termination for the latter. This should be done professionally and in writing, either by the new management company or the association’s legal counsel, following the termination terms outlined in the contract (e.g., to whom the letter should be addressed and delivered). The notice of termination should include, but is not limited to: (1) the effective date of termination; (2) instructions for record transfer; (3) a request for clarification of homeowner assessment payment procedures; (4) a request for a summarization on any outstanding/urgent association matters; (5) the new management company’s contact information; (6) and a transition checklist compiled by the board, new management, and/or the association’s legal counsel to help ensure all association records and homeowner/vendor data are transferred in a timely manner.

Maintaining a cooperative relationship with the outgoing management company can facilitate a smoother transition. If possible, the board should request a transition meeting to ensure open communication and address the foregoing.

Preparing For the Transition

It is important to establish clear responsibilities for both the outgoing and new management companies. A good place to start would be for the board to review its outgoing management contract to confirm the parameters of the outgoing management’s transition assistance in the event of its termination.

Simultaneously, the board should collaborate with its new management company to outline a transition plan that ensures continuity of service (e.g., when/how to relay the transition to new management to the association’s members and financial/vendor representatives, any changes in homeowner assessment payment procedures, association information portals, methods of communications with new management…etc.) Such information is crucial to avoid disruption to the association’s daily operations and any confusion for homeowners and the association’s vendors.

Oftentimes, a board member familiar with the day-to-day operations of the association may be designated to assist the new management company with the transition process.

Ensuring Proper Transfer of Records

Once terminated, the outgoing management company has a duty to transfer the association’s records to the association’s new management company. All association records, information, and property must be released in a timely manner to new management and any refusal to cooperate constitutes a breach of outgoing management company’s professional code of conduct and may subject outgoing management to legal action. While the board can assist the new management company in verifying whether all necessary records were transferred from outgoing management to new management, the onus is on new management to highlight any missing records/information. As missing or incomplete records can create significant operational challenges, it is highly recommended for boards to take an active role in overseeing any transition of management.

The following critical records, whether past, current, and/or proposed, should be transferred:

  • the association’s governing documents, including any amendments;
  • all financial records (e.g., annual budget reports, reserve studies, operating budget, annual/interim financial statements, bank statements/information and check registers, state and federal tax returns, reserve account balances/payments);
  • all insurance policies;
  • all routine and in-progress vendor contracts and insurance/warranty records;
  • all employees contracts, contact information, and records,
  • all board agendas and meeting minutes;
  • all election materials;
  • miscellaneous items (e.g., passwords to all digital properties/accounts, membership list, homeowner assessment account histories and enforcement records, architectural records, litigation files, keys.) See Civil Code sections 5200 et. seq for a list of all association records.

Having complete records will help the association function smoothly as boards change and memories fade.

Notifying Homeowners of Necessary Updates

Homeowners should be informed well in advance of the transition to new management to ensure proper communication channels and timely payment of the association’s regular and special assessments.

The new management company should send a notice to homeowners including clear instructions on how to update any automatic assessment payments and mailing addresses for regular/overnight payments. The notice should clarify whether the new management company will field general inquiries and billing questions from homeowners regarding the management transition prior to their official start date.

Frequent communication with homeowners is key, so it is a good idea for the association to send multiple email reminders and update the association newsletter or community bulletin boards to reinforce the changes. The board’s goal is to minimize confusion and ensure homeowners understand their role in assisting with a successful transition.

Thoughtful execution of these five integral steps will minimize disruptions and ease the potentially complex management transition process.