As a result of the prolonged California drought, AB 349 (Gonzalez) was proposed earlier this year to restrict the authority of HOAs to prohibit artificial turf. AB 349 was signed into law on September 4, 2015 and its changes to the law took immediate effect. Civil Code Section 4735 has now been amended to render void and unenforceable any provisions of a HOA's governing documents (i.e., its architectural guidelines) that "prohibits, or includes the effect of prohibiting, the use of artificial turf or any other synthetic surface that resembles grass." (Civ. Code � 4735(a)(2).) 

Learn More >>

AB 596 (Daly) was proposed to require additional statements of information to be distributed within the annual budget reports for condominium associations. AB 596 was signed into law on August 12, 2015. As a result, beginning July 1, 2016, Civil Code Section 5300 will additionally require condominium associations to provide specified statements within their annual budget reports disclosing (1) whether the association is certified by the Federal Housing Administration (FHA), and (2) whether the association is certified by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).

 
Learn More >>

AB 786 (Levine) was proposed to limit the exception extended to certain HOAs that use recycled water from being able to fine homeowners for reducing or eliminating the watering of vegetation or lawns during government-declared drought periods. AB 786 was signed into law on October 13, 2015 and its changes to the law took immediate effect. Civil Code Section 4735 has now been amended to allow for HOAs to fine a homeowner for failing to water only when recycled water is available to the homeowner and the homeowner "fails to use that recycled water for landscaping irrigation." (Civ. Code � 4735(d).)

Learn More >>

AB 1236 (Chiu) was proposed to add Section 65850.7 to the Government Code to incorporate numerous requirements and permitting processes applicable to the installation of EV charging stations. AB 1236 was signed into law on October 8, 2015 and its changes to the law took effect January 1, 2016. In sum, its changes to the law will (1) prohibit a city or county from conditioning a permit for an EV charging station on the approval of the station by the HOA, (2) require EV charging stations to meet applicable health & safety standards imposed by state and local permitting authorities (not simply those which are imposed by the HOA), (3) require cities and counties to approve applications for EV charging stations unless the station would have a "specific, adverse impact" upon public health or safety which cannot be mitigated, and (4) require larger cities and counties to adopt an ordinance creating a streamlined permitting process for EV charging stations.

Learn More >>

AB 1448 (Lopez) was proposed to limit the degree to which landlords and HOAs may prohibit the use of clotheslines or drying racks. AB 1448 was approved on October 8, 2015 and its changes to the law took effect January 1, 2016. As a result, new Sections 1940.20 and 4750.10 have been added to the Civil Code to provide homeowners and tenants with rights to use clotheslines or drying racks in their exclusive use backyards. A "clothesline" or "drying rack" does not include a "balcony, railing, awning or other part of a structure or building." HOAs are still permitted to impose "reasonable restrictions" on the use of clotheslines or drying racks, as well as "reasonable rules" governing clotheslines and drying racks. (Civ. Code � 4750.10.)

Learn More >>

AB 1516 was approved on September 28, 2015 and its changes to the law took effect January 1, 2016. It simply makes technical changes to the Assessment and Reserve Funding Disclosure form that must be distributed to a HOA's members pursuant to Civil Code Section 5570. Specifically, the word "funding" will be replaced with the word "funded" in two (2) locations on the form. (Civ. Code � 5570(a)(7).)

Learn More >>

SB 655 (Mitchell) was proposed last year in order to specify a landlord's responsibilities in connection with repairs to a building that are necessitated by the presence of mold. SB 655 was approved on October 9, 2015 and its changes to the law took effect January 1, 2016. As a result of SB 655's passage, new Section 1941.7 has been added the Civil Code in order to alleviate a landlord's responsibility to repair mold damage until the landlord receives notice or if the tenant is in violation of his/her obligations specified under Civil Code Section 1941.2. What's more significant is how SB 655 has also amended Sections 17920 and 17920.3 of the Health & Safety Code to include "visible mold growth" as a substandard building condition that could subject a landlord to criminal penalties (misdemeanor), with a limited exception provided for mold that "is minor and found on surfaces that can accumulate moisture as part of their properly functioning and intended use." SB 655 speaks to landlords (a "lessor of a building"), and not necessarily HOAs. However, courts have applied landlord/tenant law to HOAs in certain circumstances, such as those involving issues of life safety.

Learn More >>

The requirements for operating and maintaining "public pools" have been subject to various regulatory changes in recent years, including changes passed in 2015. Those changes have impacted pools within HOAs, as the California Legislature and Department of Health have defined the term "public pools" to include pools located within private HOAs and residential developments. (Health & Safety Code �� 116049.1(a), 116064.2(a)(4)(B); 22 CCR � 65503(a)(9).) The more notable changes include those which mandate (1) new parameters for water characteristics, (2) strict monitoring of pool facilities and requirements for written records, (3) enforcement of specific safety and first aid equipment, (4) requirements that newly constructed public pool enclosures have at least one keyless exit and self closing latches, and (5) the imposition of health restrictions for employees or pool users. The most significant change is that which requires HOAs with twenty-five (25) or more separate interests to test pool and spa water chemical composition and temperature on a daily basis, and to keep a daily log of the testing. (22 CCR � 65523(a).)

Learn More >>

Homeowners within condominium developments are typically granted broad authority in making improvements to the interior of their respective units that do not require modification of association common area. However, because of the way in which condominium projects are built, certain improvements made within a unit may ultimately impact the quiet use and enjoyment of neighboring homeowners (i.e., sound transmissions from hardwood or hard surface flooring). As indicated by the recent case of Ryland Mews Homeowners Association v. Munoz (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 705, to the extent that a homeowner's interior improvements result in a nuisance to neighboring homeowners, an association may have the authority to compel the homeowner to modify or remove the improvements as necessary to abate the nuisance...

Learn More >>

In Watts v. Oak Shores Community Assn. (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 466 ("Watts"), the HOA adopted rules and fees relating to short-term rentals. These rules and fees were adopted due to the negative impact short-term renters were having on the community, including increased strain/damage on the HOA's common areas through the towing of boats/watercraft, increased noise violations, increased burdens on parking, etc. Two homeowners challenged the rules and fees as being outside the scope of the Board's authority, stating that the Rule of Judicial Deference only applies to ordinary maintenance decisions made by the Board and should not extend to the type of fees at issue in Watts. The Court disagreed, holding that the Rule of Judicial Deference is not limited solely to Board decisions relating to maintenance, and further stating how "[c]ommon interest developments are best operated by the board of directors, not the courts."

The homeowners in Watts also challenged the trial court's adoption of the proportionality test when determining whether the fees adopted by the Board were reasonable. Civil Code Section 5600(b) states: "An association shall not impose or collect an assessment or fee that exceeds the amount necessary to defray the costs for which it is levied." The homeowners argued that the fee must be exact. The Court disagreed, stating that nothing in the language of Section 5600(b) "requires the exact correlation between the fee assessed and the costs for which it is levied." The most reasonable interpretation of Section 5600(b) "is that it requires nothing more than a reasonable good faith estimate of the amount of the fee necessary to defray the cost for which it is levied." Therefore, as long as the fee is "reasonably" close to the cost for which it is meant to defray, the Court held that it is compliant with Civil Code Section 5600(b).

Learn More >>

HOA board meetings are governed by the "Common Interest Development Open Meeting Act" ("Open Meeting Act"). The Open Meeting Act is designed to bring a sense of transparency to HOA governance, and is similar in purpose to California's "Brown Act" which guarantees the public's right to attend and participate in public meetings of local legislative bodies. Both the Open Meeting Act and the Brown Act include, among other procedural requirements, language regarding the notice that must be provided in advance of HOA/legislative body meetings, respectively.

In June 2015, the California Court of Appeal rendered an opinion which addressed a notice requirement under the Brown Act. In Castaic Lake Water Agency v. Newhall County Water District, et al, Castaic Lake Water Agency ("Castaic") moved the trial court to declare void an action taken at a public meeting because the related agenda identified an incorrect Government Code section as the basis for the scheduled action to be taken at that meeting. In dismissing Castaic's action, the Court held that substantial compliance with the Brown Act is the governing test, and that the notice in the agenda was sufficient to inform the public of the purpose of the meeting. While the holding in Castaic applies only to public meetings of local legislative bodies (not HOAs), it could be persuasive in a factually similar HOA context...