Assessment Collections: Payment Plans Q&A

Download pdf

By Jillian M. Wright, Esq.

When the economy dips, delinquencies rise and boards are left scrambling for solutions. Payment plans can be a useful collections tool. Boards and managers would be wise to understand when and how payment plans can help, when they are required, and what to put in a payment plan.

Q: Are Boards Required to Meet with Owners Requesting a Payment Plan?

A: Sometimes, yes. Civil Code section 5660(d) provides that an association must offer delinquent owners the right to meet with the board to discuss payment plans in its pre-lien notice. Civil Code section 5665(b) provides that a board shall meet with a requesting owner within 45 days of receiving the request to meet to discuss a payment plan if that request is sent within 15 days of the pre-lien notice being sent. If there is no board meeting scheduled to take place within that 45-day period, the board can designate a committee of one or more board members to meet with the requesting owner.

Even if a board encounters circumstances in which it is not legally required to meet with the requesting owner, a board may still want to meet with the owner if there is any chance the meeting could result in a reasonable payment schedule. The old adage, “a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush” comes to mind. Having a steady stream of income is often the least costly and most efficient way to get paid even if the payments extend over a period of time. Boards should consider all collection options with their collections services provider as there are many variables to each delinquency, but the bottom line is this: owners who get behind in paying their assessments will usually not magically acquire one large sum of money to pay off their balance. Delinquent owners often need the time and structure a payment plan allows to become current.

Also, keep in mind that if an owner makes any request to meet with the board regarding a delinquency, it may be considered a request to meet for Internal Dispute Resolution (Civ. Code § 5915(b)(2)); such is a request that an association may not deny. This is yet another reason boards should meet with requesting owners to discuss delinquencies. Generally, the more information a board has regarding an owner’s circumstances, the better a board will be able to decide how to proceed with collection efforts.

Keep in mind that any meetings to discuss a payment plan should be held in executive session. (Civ. Code § 4935(c).)

Q: Are Boards Required to Offer or Accept Proposed Payment Plans?

A: No and no. While the benefits of payment plans are discussed above, circumstances differ for every delinquent owner. If an owner does not have the paystubs or bank statements evidencing that they are capable of making regular payments, then a payment plan could be a stalling tactic.

However, if an association has set payment plan standards – for example, all payment plans must allow for the debt to be paid back within one year – the association must include those standards in its collection policy and notify owners of those standards on an annual basis in its annual budget report and policy statement. (Civ. Code § 5730(a).) However, there is no legal requirement that an association have set payment plan standards.

Q: What Should be Included in a Payment Plan?

A: A payment plan should clearly state that the owner shall pay the regular assessments monthly as well as a set amount to be paid toward the delinquent balance. Regular assessments increase and special assessments could be levied during the term of the payment plan, so the association should account for that possibility in the plan. For example, if a payment plan simply says “Owner shall pay $200 per month,” but the regular assessments later increase from $100 to $150, this means the amount being paid towards the delinquent balance goes from $100 down to $50. Yet, if the owner continues to pay $200 a month then there is no breach of the payment plan and the association would not have the right to proceed with other collection efforts.

On that note, we strongly recommend the association clarify what constitutes a breach of the payment plan and what the association’s rights are in the event the owner breaches.

The payment plan should also clarify how payments will be applied if there is a judgment balance and a post-judgment balance. Without that clarification the association may not know when a judgment is satisfied or what amounts should be included in a lien.

It should also be made clear in the payment plan agreement that the owner shall be responsible for any collection costs incurred, even if they are incurred while the owner is in compliance with the payment plan. Collections services providers often charge to monitor delinquent accounts, so while an owner may be paying according to the plan that owner should still be liable for the collection costs incurred while delinquent. Vague language in the payment plan agreement stating all collections efforts will be on hold during the plan could limit the association’s ability to collect on these costs.

PRACTICE TIP: Have your draft payment plan or payment plan standards reviewed by a collections services provider.

Q: Will Entering into a Payment Plan Limit Other Collections Options?

A: Yes, in part. While an owner is in compliance with a payment plan, additional late fees shall not accrue during the payment plan period. (Civ. Code § 5665(c).) However, an association may still record a lien while a payment plan is in effect to secure the debt. (Civ. Code § 5665(d).) Interest may also accrue while an owner is compliant with the payment plan. This is another example of why payment plan agreements should not say that all collections efforts will be on hold while the owner is in compliance with the payment plan.

Boards and managers with questions regarding payment plans should consult with legal counsel and/or their collections services provider. Our firm is happy to review and/or draft a payment plans for boards to consider implementing. Please contact us.

Remote Meetings Made Simple:

A Guide to Meeting Remotely After COVID-19 State of Emergencies Are Lifted

By Lindsay J. Anderson, Esq.

Download pdf

In 2021, Senate Bill 391 added Civil Code section 5450 which allowed board or membership meetings of California common interest developments (“CIDs”) to be conducted entirely remotely if:

  • gathering in person is unsafe or impossible because the CID is in an area affected by a local, state or emergency federal order; and
  • the association meets all of the notice and instruction requirements of Civil Code section 5450.

Since it became effective in September, 2021, many CIDs have used Civil Code section 5450 to meet entirely remotely during the COVID-19 pandemic.

In late 2022, Governor Newsom announced his intention to rescind the California COVID-19 state of emergency on or about February 28, 2023. The San Diego County Board of Supervisors and San Diego City Council have also announced they plan to end the local emergency and local health emergency declarations for San Diego County and the City of San Diego on February 28, 2023. Other counties and cities in California have announced similar plans to follow suit. On January 30, 2023, the Biden Administration announced its intention to end the national emergency and public health emergency declarations related to the COVID-19 pandemic on May 11, 2023.

So how will these impending changes affect a CID’s ability to meet remotely?

While a local, state or federal emergency order is still in place, CID boards will continue to have authority under Civil Code section 5450 to make their own determinations about whether or not it is unsafe or impossible for their community to gather in person. When the COVID-19 states of emergency are rescinded at the federal, state, and local levels, CIDs may no longer be able to invoke Civil Code section 5450 and hold meetings entirely remotely unless some other state of emergency exists, e.g. wildfire, where the association is located and that state of emergency makes gathering in person unsafe or impossible.

Does this mean associations can no longer meet remotely?

No. Civil Code section 5450 allowed CIDs to meet entirely remotely during a state of emergency. However, even if no state of emergency exists, or an existing state of emergency, e.g. drought, does not make it unsafe or impossible to meet in person, associations will still be able to largely meet remotely under Civil Code section 4090 which provides:

  • A teleconference, where a sufficient number of directors to establish quorum of the board, in different locations, are connected by electronic means, through audio or video, or both (including meetings through Zoom or similar videoconferencing software);
  • The teleconference is conducted in a manner that protects the rights of members or the association and otherwise complies with the law;
  • Notice of the teleconference meeting must identify at least one physical location so that members of the association may attend in person, and at least one director or a person designated by the board shall be present at that location; and
  • All directors participating must be able to hear one another, as well as members of the association speaking on matters before the board.


Notably, boards may still meet entirely remotely without a physical location for meetings that will be held solely in executive session.

While it will initially be an adjustment for CIDs to go back to Civil Code section 4090’s remote meeting requirements, some CIDs may opt to do so in order to maintain the increased homeowner participation in meetings many CIDs experienced during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Your board of directors should contact your association’s legal counsel for advice if the board has any questions about conducting remote meetings under Civil Code sections 4090 or 5450.

“No Lifeguard on Duty” Signs: Discriminatory?

By Christina S. Saad, Esq.

Published February 21, 2023

Download pdf


Like many Californians, you may be so used to seeing “No Lifeguard on Duty” and “Caution” signs posted around public pools and spas that you just glance at the verbiage and do not give it a second thought.   Like public pools and spas, common interest developments (CIDs) with pools and/or spas are required to post “No Lifeguard” and “Caution” signs pursuant to Sections  3120B.4 and 3120B.7 of the California Code of Regulations. The same is required for all other public pools and spas.

What CIDs may not be aware of is the sign verbiage required by Cal. Code Regs. Section 3120B.4 and 3120B.7 just a couple of years ago likely violated fair housing laws.  CIDs were therefore stuck between their obligations to post the required pool/spa sign verbiage and avoid enforcing discriminatory rules; however, a 2019 update to Cal. Code Regs. Section 3120B.4 and 3120B (effective January 1, 2020) removed the discriminatory components.

Now, CIDs must not only change the sign verbiage accordingly, but they should also review their Pool and Spa Rules to ensure the language is not discriminatory.

Change in Required Sign Verbiage

Prior to the 2019 update, Cal. Code Regs. § 3120B.4 required “No Lifeguard” signs to state “NO LIFEGUARD ON DUTY” in addition to ”Children under the age of 14 shall not use pool without a parent or adult guardian in attendance”.  However, a US Discrict Court in California found that such restrictions discriminated against families wih children (protected by federal and state  fair housing laws), in that it treated families with children differently and less favorably than adult-only households.  (See United States v. Plaza Mobile Estates (2003).)  After the 2019 update, the required verbiage changed to “NO LIFEGUARD ON DUTY” followed by “Children should not use pool without adult supervision”.  Similarly, the “Caution” sign verbiage for spas changed from “Unsupervised use by children under the age of 14 is prohibited” to “Children should not use spa without adult supervision.”  (See Cal. Code Regs. § 3120B.7 for additional required verbiage.)  The amendments to both provisions removed reference to a specific age and altered the prohibitory language to mere suggestions.

What Should Your Community Do?

  1. CIDs with pools and/or spas should update their “No Lifeguard on Duty” and “Caution” signs to reflect the current, non-discriminatory language in Code Regs. §§ 3120B.4 and 3120B.7.
  2. In addition, they should review their Pool and Spa Rules to ensure they do not treat families with children more harshly than adult-only households.

PRACTICE TIP:  Avoid any reference to specific ages or familial dynamics in your CID’s  Pool and Spa Rules.

Although restrictive Pool and Spa Rules may be well intentioned, any such discriminatory language would only be acceptable if the CID could successfully articulate a compelling business necessity and the language is “the least restrictive means to achieve that end”.   (Fair Housing Council v. Ayres, 855 F. Supp. 315, 318-19 (C.D.Cal.1994).

Do you have questions regarding your Pool or Spa  Rules? Our firm is happy to review or draft a new set of rules for your community.  Please contact us.


New Year, New Documents: When Associations Should Consider Restating their Governing Documents

Download pdf

By Rhonda R. Adato, Esq.

Published December 12, 2022


Boards of directors of community associations frequently wonder at what point they should restate their association’s Bylaws and CC&Rs. Many associations have older, outdated governing documents that could use a complete overhaul.  At the same time, restating these documents typically requires membership approval. Restated documents should also be prepared by a qualified attorney, and must be approved in a secret, double envelope vote, so the project can be relatively costly.  Below are some recommendations for when to pursue a restatement:

When portions of the governing documents are unenforceable. Older documents may have been superseded since their adoption by subsequent case law and statutes, rendering certain provisions unenforceable. Boards may want to restate their governing documents to bring them current with existing law (and thereby making them enforceable once again).

When the documents no longer fit the community’s needs. Communities change over time.  A set of CC&Rs recorded in the 1970s may no longer reflect the owners’ preferences with respect to parking arrangements, architectural styles and more. Older documents also may not address innovations like solar panels and electric vehicle charging stations.  Further, the board may wish to amend the governing documents to empower the board to address a specific problem in the community.

When the documents include discriminatory provisions. Civil Code section 4225 requires boards to amend out any provisions in a governing document which discriminate on the basis of a protected status. Such an amendment does not require membership approval.  However, once this has been accomplished, boards may want to consider pursuing a complete document overhaul (a restatement), which does require membership approval. Documents old enough to include discriminatory provisions are likely due for an update in many other respects as well.

When the documents are just confusing. Not all Bylaws and CC&Rs are made equal.  Some are better written than others. If your documents create more confusion than clarity, because of inconsistent or vague language, it may be time for a refresh. This need may be especially pressing given that vague or inconsistent language can give rise to lawsuits, as homeowners insist on interpreting the documents in one manner, and the board another!

To better protect the association’s interests. Original governing documents are typically written by the community’s developer. As one might expect, these documents frequently protect the developer’s interests rather than the association’s. The board may want to consider restating the documents to provide the board with more expansive authority, and/or insert provisions designed to minimize the association’s and individual directors’ potential liability.

No matter your association’s goals, boards should consult their community association counsel regarding the timing and procedure of restating their governing documents. Everyone deserves a makeover sometimes!



Rhonda R. Adato is an Associate Attorney in the Transactional Department of Epsten, APC, and can be reached at [email protected].

*This article was originally published in San Diego Community Insider in the Winter 2022 edition and was adapted from the original article, New Year, New Documents: When Associations Should Consider Restating their Governing Documents.

Sign Up For Our Newsletter Here!

Epsten, APC practice law in California law only. Our firm publishes a monthly electronic newsletter for community association managers and board members. Designed for those involved in day-to-day management of community associations, our eNewsletters highlight community association best practices and new developments in the laws affecting associations, and sheds light on topics of concern and relevance to those involved in association management.

Recent Issues

Miss an issue of E-News from Epsten, APC? Visit our newsletter archive here.

If you are a community association manager and would like to receive future issues directly, please email Tiffany Christian.

What Duties Does an Association Have to Maintain Video Recordings?

Download pdf

Victor Valley Union High School District v. Superior Court (2022) 86 Cal. App. 5th 940.

What Duties Does an Association Have to Maintain Video Recordings?

By Joseph A. Sammartino, Esq.


Technology is advancing at an ever-increasing pace.  The cellphones in our pockets are not just phones, — they­­  take pictures, send email and text messages, provide GPS navigation, play music, run hundreds of apps that do almost everything, and they have better higher resolution video capability than movie studios had in the 1990s.  As technology improved and shrunk (and became much less expensive), video cameras for security surveillance have become so commonplace that most people do not notice them and go about their daily lives as if the cameras were not there.  But what happens when one of those cameras – in one of our communities – records activity that leads to an inquiry that does not get resolved which turns into a dispute and ultimately becomes a lawsuit?  What duties does an association have to maintain those video recordings or face possible sanctions under the Code of Civil Procedure for spoliation of evidence?

On December 22, 2022, the Fourth District Court of Appeal issued its opinion in the case of Victor Valley Union High School District v. Superior Court (Doe).  The court, in a different context, set forth the most current guidance on maintaining video recordings and other potential evidence.  The facts of the Victor Valley case are tragic and hopefully extraordinarily rare: two male high school students took a third male student, who was unsupervised, but who typically had full-time adult supervision both in and out of the classroom, from the cafeteria into a bathroom where they sexually assaulted him.  The school had video cameras in the cafeteria, and the assistant principal and a security officer reviewed the footage from the cafeteria cameras from a three-day period.  The third day of video included the recording of the two students taking the third student from the lunch table toward the locked bathroom.  Fourteen days later, because no one took any steps to preserve the video because each thought the other was saving it, the video was recorded over and lost forever.

Importantly, the court set forth the rules clearly and concisely: the safe-harbor provision of the California Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030, subdivision (f), “shields a party from sanctions for the spoliation [meaning the loss or destruction] of electronic evidence only if the evidence was altered or destroyed when the party was not under a duty to preserve the evidence, and the duty to preserve relevant evidence is triggered when the party is objectively on notice that litigation is reasonably foreseeable, meaning litigation is probable and likely to arise from an incident or dispute and not a mere possibility.”

While the court’s words are clear, they leave an important practical question unanswered: when is litigation likely to arise from an incident or dispute and instead of being a mere possibility?  That is a question that could be argued and debated before courts for decades without a clear, simple answer.  From a lawyer to a client, the simplest and best answer to that question is the age-old advice: better safe than sorry.  If there is video footage (or other evidence) that relates to any incident, issue, or dispute, it would be much better to take the steps necessary to preserve that evidence until final resolution is reached rather than to take the chance that an appellate court might decide years later that litigation was likely to arise and, therefore, to impose monetary sanctions against an association for destroying evidence that should have been preserved.


The Privette Doctrine: How Community Associations Can Be Shielded from Potential Liability for Work-Related Injuries to Employees of Independent Contractors

Download pdf

By Dea C. Franck, Esq.

Outside of certain California legal circles, the Privette doctrine is not well known, but this doctrine provides important liability protections for anyone, including community associations, that hire an independent contractor to perform work on one’s property.  Because of these potential liability protections, community association boards and managers should be aware of the Privette doctrine and its exceptions to protect the communities they serve from potential liability stemming from workplace injuries.

The Privette doctrine derives its name from the 1993 California Supreme Court case, Privette v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 689.  Prior to this case, California utilized the doctrine of peculiar risk meaning that a person who hired an independent contractor to perform an inherently dangerous job could be held liable for injuries suffered to the independent contractor’s employees while performing that job.

In the Privette case, Privette hired a roofing contractor to install a new roof on the property owner’s duplex.  While performing that job, one of the roofer’s employees was badly burned by the hot tar he was carrying when he fell off a ladder to the roof.  Privette was not present at the property when the employee’s injuries occurred.  The employee sued Privette alleging that Privette was negligent in hiring the roofer and that the doctrine of peculiar risk made Privette liable for his injuries.  However, the court in Privette determined that the doctrine of peculiar risk was no longer fair.  Why?  Because the State’s workers’ compensation system allows injured workers to “recover benefits for injuries ‘arising out of and in the course of the employment’” and when a person or entity hires an independent contractor to perform a job or service, the hirer inherently delegates to that contractor the obligation to perform the work safely and to provide a safe worksite.  In light of these reasons, the Privette court held that the hirer of an independent contractor would not be vicariously liable for work-related injuries suffered by the workers of hirer’s independent contractor.  The court’s holding would be thereafter called the “Privette doctrine.”

There are two elements to the Privette doctrine, which together create a rebuttable presumption in favor of a defendant hirer.  The first element is that the defendant hirer must establish that the plaintiff worker was either the independent contractor or worked for the independent contractor when the plaintiff’s injuries or death occurred.  The second element is that the defendant hired the plaintiff directly or hired the plaintiff’s employer when the plaintiff’s injuries or death occurred.  If a defendant hirer can establish both elements of the Privette doctrine, the burden of proof shifts to the plaintiff worker who must prove that an exception to the Privette doctrine applies.

There are currently three exceptions to the Privette doctrine, which if proven by a plaintiff worker could expose the defendant hirer to liability:

1) Retained Control Exception – Under the retained control exception, a person or entity that hires an independent contractor will not be liable for work-related injuries to the independent contractor’s employees unless the hirer retained control over the safety conditions at a jobsite and by negligently exercising that retained control the hirer affirmatively contributed to the worker’s injuries. (See Hooker v. Department of Transportation (2002) 27 Cal.4th 198.)

2) Defective Equipment Exception – Under the defective equipment exception, if a person or entity hires an independent contractor, the hirer requests or requires the independent contractor to use defective equipment of the hirer to perform the work, and that defective equipment affirmatively contributed to the worker’s work-related injuries, then the hirer may be liable for the worker’s injuries or death. (See McKown v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (2002) 27 Cal.4th 219.)

3) Concealed Hazard Exception – Under the concealed hazard exception, if a person or entity hires an independent contractor, the hirer knew or should have known of a preexisting concealed hazardous condition on the hirer’s property, the independent contractor did not know or could not have reasonably discovered that preexisting concealed hazard, the hirer failed to warn the independent contractor of that hazard, and a worker of the independent contractor suffers injuries or dies because of that preexisting concealed hazard, then the hirer may be liable for the worker’s injuries or death.  (See Kinsman v. Unocal Corp. (2005) 37 Cal.4th 659.)  Conversely, if an independent contractor knows of a concealed hazard on the hirer’s property or the hazard is open and obvious, the independent contractor fails to consider that hazard and, as a result, the independent contractor provides an unsafe worksite, and the independent contractor’s failure to provide a safe worksite results in a worker becoming injured or dies, then the hirer will not be liable.  (See Gonzalez v. Mathis (2021) 12 Cal.5th 29.)

In light of the Privette doctrine and its exceptions, community association boards and managers should keep the following in mind:

  • Besides determining the scope of work, leave any decisions as to how the work should be performed and what equipment should be used to perform the work to the discretion of the hired independent contractor.
  • If a board or manager knows of a preexisting concealed hazard in the community where the independent contractor and/or their workers will be working or traversing, then disclose that hazard to the independent contractor prior to the work commencing.
  • Contracts with vendors should expressly delegate to the independent contractors the obligation to comply with all applicable statutory and regulatory requirements to provide a safe worksite.
  • Confirm that the independent contractor has the requisite license(s), insurance and worker’s compensation coverage prior to hiring the independent contractor.
  • Require the independent contractor to add the association as an additional insured on the independent contractor’s insurance policies whenever possible.

Dea C. Franck, Esq., is a shareholder and senior attorney with Epsten, APC.  Epsten, APC has been providing solutions to Southern California common interest development legal issues since 1986.  Dea may be contacted at [email protected].


Download pdf

*This article was originally published in the CAI-CV HOA Living Coachella Valley Magazine and was adapted from the original article, The Privette Doctrine: How Community Associations Can Be Shielded from Potential Liability for Work-Related Injuries to Employees of Independent Contractors) as authored by Dea C. Franck, Esq.

Formation and Use of Executive Committees

Download pdf

By Karyn A. Larko, Esq. and Christina S. Saad, Esq.

A committee is a group of persons appointed by an association’s board of directors to perform a specific task or tasks.

The scope of authority of a committee is largely dependent on its composition. A committee composed solely or partially of persons other than board members is generally tasked with advising the board on specific matters or exercising powers granted to that committee by the governing documents (e.g., some architectural review committees (“ARCs”).

Conversely, executive committees (“ECs”) are composed of two or more current directors and only current directors in accordance with California Corporations Code § 7212. ECs are given decision-making power that would otherwise be exercised by the board. An example of an EC is a litigation committee comprised solely of directors, established to communicate with the association’s legal counsel and make decisions pertaining to a lawsuit. Another example is an ARC comprised solely of directors tasked with exercising the board’s authority under the governing documents to approve or reject architectural applications.

Forming an EC

An EC should be formed when a board needs to delegate tasks for which it is responsible. This need may arise when a board is dealing with a complex, time-consuming matter that is ongoing and necessitates attention between board meetings. This need also exists when a dispute exists between a director and the association. In the latter example, the interested director (i.e., the director whose interests are contrary to the association’s interests) should not serve on the EC due to their conflicting interests.

California Civil Code § 5350 requires directors to recuse themselves from voting on certain matters. In some instances, it may also be prudent to form an EC to address these matters.

ECs should not be formed to exclude a director from generally participating in board discussions and votes. However, if a director is jeopardizing the interests of the association by, for example, revealing confidential or privileged information to others, it may be appropriate to form an EC to exclude that director from meetings whereat the Board discusses matters that, if made public, might expose the association to liability or disadvantage the association in a dispute. Your boards should consult with their association’s legal counsel before forming an EC for this purpose as taking this action can also create legal issues for the association.

Why Form an EC?

There are benefits to having ECs. An EC comprised of directors willing and able to volunteer more time to the association can address complex, time-consuming matters more quickly than the entire Board. Additionally, since an EC has fewer members, scheduling meetings and coming to a collective decision on matters is often easier. Finally, if less than a quorum of directors serves on an EC, the EC meetings are not subject to the Open Meetings Act (i.e., the meetings are not subject to the same notice and agenda requirements as board meetings).

In the event of a dispute involving a director, especially a dispute that could lead to litigation, there are important additional benefits to establishing an EC of disinterested directors (i.e., directors not adverse to the association in the matter) to handle the dispute. By establishing the EC, the board can prevent the interested director from obtaining privileged or confidential communications and documents related to the matter (e.g. correspondence between the EC and the association’s legal counsel, expert findings), thereby better protecting the association’s attorney-client privilege and its interests. The board can also avoid the appearance of impropriety and better protect the association and directors individually against potential liability.

In order to preserve the association’s attorney-client privilege, however, all EC meetings pertaining to the director dispute must be held in executive session and all legal guidance, EC discussions, meeting minutes and other documents and information related to the dispute cannot be disclosed to persons outside of the EC, including other directors.

Forming an EC

Have your boards review their governing documents prior to establishing an EC. The governing documents may already establish the EC, grant the board committee-making authority or, conversely, limit the board’s committee-making authority, as well as impose requirements on how ECs are formed or who may serve on them.

Unless otherwise provided for in the governing documents, ECs may be formed by a resolution or charter adopted by a quorum of the board pursuant to Corporations Code § 7212. A resolution is an official expression of the opinion or will of the board that includes the reasons for that opinion or will. A charter is a founding document that is typically more detailed than a resolution and outlines the EC’s responsibilities and authority.

When forming an EC, your boards should consider: 1) whether any directors have conflicts of interest that disqualify them from appointment or perceived conflicts that make appointment unwise; 2) whether certain directors have knowledge and experience that would benefit the EC; 3) the time commitment needed to serve on the EC; 4) whether the governing documents dictate which directors serve on the EC (e.g. based on the offices they hold); 5) whether California law dictates the composition of the EC (e.g. Civil Code § 5501 requires the treasurer to serve on an EC that reviews the association’s financials); and 6) the willingness of directors to serve on the EC.

The board should also keep in mind that if the EC is composed of a majority of the board, the same notice and agenda requirements for board meetings will apply to EC meetings. Having said this, the authority of an EC composed of a quorum of the Board is less likely to be challenged. Thus, ECs established to handle controversial matters should generally include a quorum of the board.


Multiple Choice Questions (correct answers in bold)

An executive committee may be composed of two or more:

a) current and former directors.

b) current directors and general members.

c) current directors and non-member experts on the matter.

d) current directors only.


Which of the following is not an appropriate reason for a board to form an executive committee?

a) a complex, time-consuming matter has arisen for the association

b) a majority of directors do not like the personality of another director

c) a dispute exists between a director and the association

d) the governing documents have granted the Board the authority to do so


Which of the following statements pertaining to executive committees is accurate?

a) An executive committee must be formed by a quorum of the board, and all executive committee meetings must be properly noticed pursuant to the Open Meetings Act.

b) An executive committee may be formed by a quorum of the board, in which case the executive committee meetings must be properly noticed pursuant to the Open Meetings Act.

c) An executive committee may be formed by a quorum of the board, but, in either case, notice of executive committee meetings should not be provided to the membership.

d) An executive committee may not be formed by a quorum of the board, and notice of executive committee meetings should not be provided to the membership.


Download pdf

*This article was originally published in The Law Journal Winter, 2022 and was adapted from the original article, Formation and Use of Executive Committees, as authored by Karyn A. Larko, Esq. and Christina S. Saad, Esq.


An interview with ProTec Building Services and Kieran J. Purcell, Esq.

An interview with ProTec Building Services and Kieran J. Purcell, Esq.

Dave Rauch of ProTec Building Services interviews Epsten, APC Shareholder, Kieran Purcell, Esq., to discuss a wide variety of topics including SB 326 and what it means for communities as the deadline nears. They also discuss future legislation we can expect to see here in California in response to the Champlain Towers collapse and other trends in the industry.

Click here to check out the full interview.

Video source credits to ProTec Building Services

Epsten, APC Attorneys, Susan Hawks McClintic & Kieran Purcell Receive National Recognition as CCAL Fellows

Epsten, APC is pleased to announce that Susan (Sue) M. Hawks McClintic, Esq., Managing Shareholder and Kieran J. Purcell, Esq., Shareholder have been granted fellowship in the College of Community Association Lawyers (CCAL). More than 4,000 lawyers practice community association law in the United States, yet fewer than 175 attorneys nationwide can distinguish themselves as CCAL fellows.

Read the Press Release