EGH Newsletter Header

In This Issue
Quick Links
EVENTS

CACM Law Seminar & Expo Pictures
Did you take a picture with us and our BIG Bear at CACM's Law Seminar & Expo?

Click Here to view our photo album from our booth slideshow.
Upcoming Events
To view upcoming participation at industry-wide events and speaking engagements, please click here.
NEWS

HOA Short-term Rentals

 

Watts v. Oak Shores Community Association is a new case upholding an association's right to establish rules for short term rentals against a challenge from plaintiff homeowners.  The rules enacted by the Association included a minimum 7-day rental, an annual fee of $325 imposed on owners who rented their homes; a rule limiting the number of automobiles that renters were allowed to bring into the development, a garbage collection fee, and a property transfer fee.  The court upheld all of the Association's rules.  An expert testified at trial, that unlike guests, who are typically present with the owners, short-term renters are never present with the owner; guests tend to be less destructive and less burdensome than renters; short term renters require greater supervision and increase administrative expenses.  The Association had also done a study which supported the administration fee for rentals.

 

The court rejected owner's argument that Davis-Stirling prohibited such charges, because they (allegedly) exceeded the cost to the Association.  Experts testified the fees were in line with the cost to the Association.

 

The trial court awarded $1,180,646.50 to the Association in attorneys fees to defend the case.
March/April 2015 
Shareholder Insight
Happy Spring!

I thought that March madness was all about basketball (Go Irish!) but based on the issues I've been addressing lately, the madness isn't limited to the basketball court.  Just last week, I got my first email ever with the phrase "ashes of the deceased" in the subject line and researched the difference between a regular pig and a pot bellied pig.  (Just for the record, the ashes of the deceased were human, not the pig's.)  It is hard to believe that some people think community association law is boring!  Even after working with community associations for 28 years, I still get surprised sometimes.  I hope your spring is full of surprises of the good kind and that your bracket wins - if you picked Notre Dame!


Susan Hawks McClintic

Co-Managing Shareholder
Chair, Community Association Transactional Practice Group 
Architectural Decisions

How Should Architectural Decisions be Made When an Owner Fails to Submit an Application?


By David A. Kline, Esq.

 

How can an association follow its own procedures to review an application that was never submitted? 

 

In general, I recommend that associations consider two separate issues.  First, associations should address the failure to submit architectural or landscaping plans like all other violations.  This may include a demand to correct the violation by submitting plans, fining the homeowner after notice and a hearing, submitting the matter to IDR or ADR, and/or filing a lawsuit to compel the owner to submit plans.

 

Separately, whether or not the owner submits plans, before seeking an injunction to compel the owner to return the property to its original condition, the board or architectural committee should consider whether it would have approved the changes if the owner had submitted an application.  

 

Click here to read the full article.
AED Requirements 
Under California Common Law

Verdugo v. Target Corp. (2014) 59 Cal.4th 312

 

By Carrie M. Timko, Esq.

 

The provision and use of automated external defibrillators ("AEDs") in community associations has been a topic of interest for managers and boards since Health and Safety Code § 104113 required every "health studio" to acquire and maintain an AED onsite and to train personnel in the use of the AED.  It is not clear whether community associations with fitness facilities are subject to the requirement to have an AED onsite.  The Attorney General's office issued an opinion that community associations are not subject to the requirement but this area of the law remains unsettled.  If you have questions about the requirements for any particular fitness facilities, please contact the association's legal counsel.

 

In the recent case of Verdugo v. Target Corp. (2014) 59 Cal.4th 312, the California Supreme Court clarified a corporation's common law (as opposed to statutory) duty to its customers with regard to the provision and availability of an AED.  While this case dealt specifically with a for-profit business' duty to its customers and does not directly deal with a common interest development's duties under California law (nor does it change the statutory requirement for AEDs in health studios), it provides a reading of the general temperature of the California Supreme Court with regard to the common law duty to provide AEDs to the public when not required to do so under statute. Continue reading...
Get Social
From event photos, speaking engagements and industry event participation to charitable good works by our attorneys and staff... We love to sharing what's new with EG&H, so follow us on your favorite social site!

Facebook  |  LinkedIn  |  Twitter  |  Yelp  

About Us
For more than 29 years, the attorneys of Epsten Grinnell & Howell have practiced community association law and provided common interest developments with counsel, legal strategies, rapid assessment recovery, construction defect and other civil litigation assistance, interpretation of fair housing issues, and alternative dispute resolution throughout Southern California. 

We serve associations throughout San Diego, Riverside, San Bernardino, Orange and Los Angeles counties. Our attorneys have recovered more than $250 million for clients in complex construction defect litigation cases, including community associations, condominium towers and commercial buildings.
Epsten Grinnell & Howell is a Professional Corporation, incorporated in the State of California. Our attorneys are licensed to practice law in California and the firm and its attorneys have attempted to comply with all legal and ethical requirements in this jurisdiction. We have created this internet site (epsten.com) for general information purposes only, and only address issues involving California law, and Federal law where it applies to matters in California. No information accessible on or through this internet site should be construed as legal advice, legal opinion, an endorsement with respect to any matter, or a solicitation for legal business. You should not rely on such information as legal advice for your particular matter without consulting your legal counsel. View entire disclaimer.