Fourth Quarter · 2014

Continued on page 2

Our attorneys and collection specialists are committed to providing you with professional and personal service.

In This Issue:

• Water Intrusion Responsibility

• 2014 Legislation Changes

• Litigation Support by Property Managers

• Board Member Harassment Consequences

Editor’s Note: This is a two-part article. The first installment will deal with water intrusion issues in single-family detached, duplex and townhome projects. Part two which will appear in our next newsletter will address the issues in sorting out responsibility for water intrusion in

condominium projects.

Sorting out responsibility for water intrusion is a difficult and complex task. When water causes damage to the interior of a home there are many factors to consider when determining whether the owner, Association or insurance carrier should pay. First, the type of housing must be considered. The allocation of responsibilities differs depend-ing on whether the home is single-family detached, attached duplex, multi unit town-home or stacked condominium. Second, the source of the water intrusion may be from roof leaks, poor drainage, misdirected sprin-kler heads, air-conditioning condensate lines,

icemaker lines, washing machine hoses, fail-ure of supply line plumbing, slab leak or fail-ure of drain lines. Third, the failure of plumbing lines can be “sudden and acciden-tal” or occur slowly over matter of months or years. Fourth, consideration must be given as to the classification of the property damage whether it is common area, unit or personal property.

Management will be faced with analyzing these issues in three basic types of properties. First and simplest is the planned develop-ment single-family detached home where the Association typically has no responsibility to maintain the owner’s property. Next is the multi-unit townhouse planned development where the Association is responsible for main-taining the exterior of the townhouses. Last and most complex is a condominium project where the Association is responsible not only for the exterior but also plumbing and struc-tural portions of the building.

The complexity of the problem increases as we progress from a single family detached

Continued on page 3

Visit our blog and be a part of the conversation.

2014 Legislation Brings Changes to HOAsBy Garrett Wait, Esq.

2014 was a difficult legislative year for common interest developments as California enacted a number of laws ostensibly designed to protect homeowners at the expense of their associations. Most

notably, the legislature took action to conserve water during California’s his-toric drought, pushing across several bills with significant restrictions on HOA water policies. Those bills along with several others with restrictive impact on association governance have created more legal landmines for HOAs.

Assembly Bill 2100 amended lan-guage in California Civil Code Section 4735 to disallow HOAs from fining homeowners for failing to water their

yards during a governor-decreed drought emergency. It also forces HOAs to allow water-efficient plants, but associations are still able to enforce weed, dead veg-etation, and grass-cutting provisions of

their rules and regulations. This legisla-tion was enacted and took immediate effect in Summer 2014.

Assembly Bill 2014 and State Bill 992 contained similar or identical language

as Assembly Bill 2100. However, AB 2104 extended the restrictions to include local water emergencies in addition to gover-nor-declared emergencies. SB 992 added a prohibition on fines for failing to pres-sure wash when required under an asso-ciation’s governing documents.

One bill that allows HOAs at least some respite is AB 968, which adds and amends Civil Code Section 4775 to make maintenance of exclusive use common area the sole responsibility of the owner who enjoys the benefit of that exclusive use common area. The one downside is that the new law will not take effect until January 1, 2017.

The most controversial new law enacted this year is AB 1738 which amends the Internal Dispute Resolutions

Corporate Office8220 University Avenue, Suite 100

La Mesa, CA 91942-3837(619) 589-8800 · FAX (619) 589-2680

Servicing San Diego, Riverside, San Bernardino and Los Angeles Counties

krigerlawfirm.com

email: hoalaw@krigerlawfirm.com

If you no longer wish to receive the Kriger Law Firm News,

please call (619) 589-8800 and let us know.

Continued on page 4

Managing Editor Joel M. Kriger, Esq.

Presort StandardU.S. Postage

PAIDPermit 751

San Diego CA

2014 Legislation ChangesContinued from page 1

Our Voice on the WebVISIT US TO LEARN ABOUT

OUR FULL RANGE OF SERVICES

krigerlawfirm.com krigerlawfirm.com/blog/

Check our Blog for the Most Recent News:krigerlawfirm.com/blog/

Sorting Out Responsibility for Water IntrusionBy Joel Kriger, Esq.

procedures between HOA boards and members. Civil Code Section 5910 has been amended to allow members who request IDR to bring an attorney or any other person to assist them in the IDR meeting.

This will have the effect of increasing cost to an associa-tion if a member’s attorney is present during IDR because the association’s attorney should be present as well. It also turns what is intended to be an informal process into a far more formal meeting between the HOA and a disgruntled member. CAI’s California Legislative Action Committee strongly opposed this new law, but the law was passed and signed despite the industry’s objections.

Assembly Bill 2561 allows homeowners to grow food crops for personal use in their backyards and exclusive use common areas. The bill specifically excludes marijuana growth, however, so HOAs should still keep an eye out for owners attempting to grow pot. Assembly Bill 2430 amends the law so that the costs of required disclosures must be paid by the seller at closing and the costs must not exceed the actual costs of production. The final bill which passed and will be made law is Assembly Bill 2188, which gives HOAs only 45 days to review and approve solar installation requests made by homeowners.

Homeowners associations must tread carefully with some of the changes in the law. If your board believes the HOA’s policies require legal review, please do not hesitate to con-tact the attorneys at Kriger Law Firm. n

2014 was a difficult legislative

year for common interest

developments in california.

Homeowners associations must

tread carefully witH some of

tHe cHanges in tHe law.

KLFNews_4thQtr'14-n.indd 1 1/6/15 3:44 PM

By Bradley A. Schuber, Esq.

Litigation Support – The Role of Property Managers STAy AwARE OF ThESE ThREE AREAS OF ImpORTANCE

By Garrett Wait, Esq.

HOABlog

To read more, and get the most current and relevant HOA news and

information from the Kriger Law Firm, go to krigerlawfirm.com and click on the word Blog in the upper right of the

home page. Visit and be part of the conversation!

All of us at Kriger Law Firm want to wish you a happy and prosperous New Year. We are

dedicated to personal service, and providing top notch legal services while ensuring a timely response

to your community’s needs.

Is litigation in the horizon for one of your associations? Here are a few things that you can do as a property manager to help support your client in an upcom-ing lawsuit.

First, help your association preserve the attorney-client privilege. In California, communications between attor-neys and clients are privi-leged pursuant to Evidence Code sections 950-962. Generally, this means that communications between the attorney and the cli-ent cannot be discovered by other parties to the liti-gation.

The privilege encour-ages open and honest dis-cussion between the attorney and client in order to evaluate different options without fear of discovery of the content of the communications. However, an association can waive the privilege if it is not careful. Privileged communications should only occur between the attorney and the board of directors, and should not be shared with the general membership.

Perhaps the best way a manager can help pre-serve the attorney-client privilege is to direct privi-leged communications (e.g., letters, e-mails, etc.) to the association’s board of directors only, and to keep such correspon-dence in a separate file marked as “Attorney-Client Privileged”.

Second, help your association maintain the work-product doctrine. Pursu ant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2018.030, the work prod-uct of an attorney is, for the most part, not discoverable.

An attorney’s work product generally includes any writing that reflects an attor-ney’s impressions, conclusions, opinions,

or legal research. However, it also includes reports prepared by experts who have been retained by the attorney. Such reports are generally protected from disclosure until the expert has been designated as a witness to testify at trial. However, the protections afforded by the work-product doctrine as to experts, exist only if the attorney retains the expert, and not if the association

retains the expert. As a result, the best way a manager can help maintain the work-product privilege is to involve the attorney early in the process, even prior to litiga-tion, so that the attorney, in lieu of the association, retains the expert.

Third, help your association with the production of documents. In almost all liti-gation, the party adverse to the association will demand documents pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.010. This section provides for the inspection and copying of various documents and records. For asso-ciations, these typically include articles of incorporation, bylaws, CC&Rs, rules and

regulations, agendas, meeting minutes, board packets, e-mails, computer files, correspondence files, homeowner complaints, vendor invoices, returned checks, photographs, request for repairs, main-tenance documents, archi-tectural requests, architectural violations, hearing notices, and work orders, to name a few.

When these documents are requested, the associa-tion usually has thirty days to produce the records. However, it is important to remember that the attor-ney needs to review each document the association intends to produce to make sure that the docu-ment is responsive, and not subject to a privilege. Given the broad nature of discovery, the manager can assist the association best by locating and pull-ing documents prior to receiving the demand from the opposing party.

Moreover, discuss with your attorney at the initial stages of litiga- tion what types of docu-ments will be needed for the lawsuit. Getting a head start in collecting documents will help your association properly produce documents.

Also, once litigation begins, make sure to avoid destroying any documents or deleting any e-mails for the association that you might otherwise do in the normal course of business. n

home to a stacked condominium. As a general rule, owners are responsible for maintenance of a single-family detached home. When there is water intrusion through the roof, misdirected sprinkler head located on the lot or failure of plumbing, the responsibility falls com-pletely on that of the owner. An Association can be held responsible for water intrusion into a single-family home where there is faulty common area drainage resulting in excess water flowing onto the lot and ponding around its foundation.

Insurance will come to the assistance of the single-family detached owner in lim-ited situations. As a general rule home-owner insurance will not cover water intrusion from storms (unless it is “wind-driven rain”), damage from surface water runoff, or misdirected sprinkler heads.

Most insurance policies will cover flooding resulting from “sudden and accidental” failure of supply line plumbing. No cover-age is afforded for pinhole or small leaks that cause damage over time.

Duplex and multi-unit townhome projects are typically created as planned developments. The difference between a planned development and a condominium is that the owner in a planned develop-ment has title to the land underneath the home and owns all elements of the home including the roof, slab, plumbing, etc. In a condominium project, the individual has separate ownership of only the airspace within the unit while all other elements of the project including the building and land are held in common ownership with the other owners.

In the duplex and multi-unit townhome project, the Association is generally charged with the responsibility of main-taining the building envelope or exterior of the property which would typically include the roof, painting, stucco or wood siding. The Association can be held respon-sible for water intrusion through those elements that it is responsible to maintain. Liability would not be automatic but require proof of negligence. In other words, the member must demonstrate that the Association failed to perform its main-tenance duties in accordance with the required standard of care in the industry. Liability would follow if the Association neglected to repair roofs after being informed of leakage, failed to perform routine inspections regarding conditions or failed to replace the roof once its useful life had expired. Generally, all plumbing is owned and maintained by the member and therefore the Association would not have any responsibility in the event of a plumb-ing failure which would include slab leaks, air-conditioning condensate lines, washing machine hoses, supply lines or drain lines.

The most complex and troublesome water intrusion issues to sort out happen in condominiums. A condominium building contains a mixture of Association and owner maintained plumbing facilities. Water intrusion typically does not affect just one unit owner but also involves com-mon area and often times adjacent owners and those below. These issues will be addressed in our next newsletter in part two of this article. n

There are times when owners do not agree with the decisions made by the Board of Directors with respect to maintenance, increases in assessments, and the like. Sometimes heated discussions occur during board meetings. Sometimes, these discussions continue outside of the board meetings and become overly hostile or even threatening. When this happens, a board mem-ber or members might be victims of harassment by disgruntled owners.

Anyone who has been the victim of a threat of physical violence or an immi-nent threat of the same can request the court to issue a Civil Harassment Restraining Order pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 527.6.

Before a judge will issue a restraining order to protect the board member, the judge must determine whether there is a “course of conduct”, “credible threat of violence” and/or “harassment” of the person requesting the restraining order.

A course of conduct is defined as a pattern of behavior composed of a series of acts over a period of time, however short, evidencing a continuity of purpose which includes, stalking, harassing calls or e-mails.

A credible threat of violence is defined as a knowing and willful statement or course of conduct that would place a reasonable person in fear for his or her safety, or the safety of his or her immediate family and that serves no legitimate purpose.

Harassment is defined as unlawful violence, a credible threat of violence, or a knowing and willful course of conduct directed at a specific person that seriously alarms, annoys or harasses the person and serves no legitimate purpose. The course of conduct must be one that would cause a reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress, and must actually cause substantial emotional distress.

Two separate court appearances are required to obtain the restraining order. At these hearings, the court will ask to hear testimony of both the victim and the accused. If the court determines that a restraining order should be issued to protect the board member, the order may include items such as: preventing the owner from harassing, talking, threatening, destroying personal property, contacting the board member, or directly or indirectly coming into contact with the board member. The restraining order may also specify the distance the owner must stay away from the board member.

If a board member in your community is the victim of harassment, please contact our office for an evaluation of whether a restraining order may be obtained on behalf of the board member. n

By Jamie Handrick, Esq.

yOUR ROLE IN mAINTAINING ATTORNEy-CLIENT pRIVILEGE,

hELpING TO SUppORT ThE wORK-pRODUCT DOCTORINE,

AND EFFICIENT DOCUmENT mANAGEmENT wILL GREATLy

ASSIST yOUR ATTORNEy’S EFFORTS AND pRODUCTIVITy.

Responsibility for Water Intrusion Continued from page 1

2 Kriger Law Firm Quarterly Newsletter · Fourth Quarter, 2014

Harassment of a Board Member Could Warrant a Restraining Order

Kriger Law Firm Quarterly Newsletter · Fourth Quarter, 2014 3

KLFNews_4thQtr'14-n.indd 2 1/6/15 3:44 PM

By Bradley A. Schuber, Esq.

Litigation Support – The Role of Property Managers STAy AwARE OF ThESE ThREE AREAS OF ImpORTANCE

By Garrett Wait, Esq.

HOABlog

To read more, and get the most current and relevant HOA news and

information from the Kriger Law Firm, go to krigerlawfirm.com and click on the word Blog in the upper right of the

home page. Visit and be part of the conversation!

All of us at Kriger Law Firm want to wish you a happy and prosperous New Year. We are

dedicated to personal service, and providing top notch legal services while ensuring a timely response

to your community’s needs.

Is litigation in the horizon for one of your associations? Here are a few things that you can do as a property manager to help support your client in an upcom-ing lawsuit.

First, help your association preserve the attorney-client privilege. In California, communications between attor-neys and clients are privi-leged pursuant to Evidence Code sections 950-962. Generally, this means that communications between the attorney and the cli-ent cannot be discovered by other parties to the liti-gation.

The privilege encour-ages open and honest dis-cussion between the attorney and client in order to evaluate different options without fear of discovery of the content of the communications. However, an association can waive the privilege if it is not careful. Privileged communications should only occur between the attorney and the board of directors, and should not be shared with the general membership.

Perhaps the best way a manager can help pre-serve the attorney-client privilege is to direct privi-leged communications (e.g., letters, e-mails, etc.) to the association’s board of directors only, and to keep such correspon-dence in a separate file marked as “Attorney-Client Privileged”.

Second, help your association maintain the work-product doctrine. Pursu ant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2018.030, the work prod-uct of an attorney is, for the most part, not discoverable.

An attorney’s work product generally includes any writing that reflects an attor-ney’s impressions, conclusions, opinions,

or legal research. However, it also includes reports prepared by experts who have been retained by the attorney. Such reports are generally protected from disclosure until the expert has been designated as a witness to testify at trial. However, the protections afforded by the work-product doctrine as to experts, exist only if the attorney retains the expert, and not if the association

retains the expert. As a result, the best way a manager can help maintain the work-product privilege is to involve the attorney early in the process, even prior to litiga-tion, so that the attorney, in lieu of the association, retains the expert.

Third, help your association with the production of documents. In almost all liti-gation, the party adverse to the association will demand documents pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.010. This section provides for the inspection and copying of various documents and records. For asso-ciations, these typically include articles of incorporation, bylaws, CC&Rs, rules and

regulations, agendas, meeting minutes, board packets, e-mails, computer files, correspondence files, homeowner complaints, vendor invoices, returned checks, photographs, request for repairs, main-tenance documents, archi-tectural requests, architectural violations, hearing notices, and work orders, to name a few.

When these documents are requested, the associa-tion usually has thirty days to produce the records. However, it is important to remember that the attor-ney needs to review each document the association intends to produce to make sure that the docu-ment is responsive, and not subject to a privilege. Given the broad nature of discovery, the manager can assist the association best by locating and pull-ing documents prior to receiving the demand from the opposing party.

Moreover, discuss with your attorney at the initial stages of litiga- tion what types of docu-ments will be needed for the lawsuit. Getting a head start in collecting documents will help your association properly produce documents.

Also, once litigation begins, make sure to avoid destroying any documents or deleting any e-mails for the association that you might otherwise do in the normal course of business. n

home to a stacked condominium. As a general rule, owners are responsible for maintenance of a single-family detached home. When there is water intrusion through the roof, misdirected sprinkler head located on the lot or failure of plumbing, the responsibility falls com-pletely on that of the owner. An Association can be held responsible for water intrusion into a single-family home where there is faulty common area drainage resulting in excess water flowing onto the lot and ponding around its foundation.

Insurance will come to the assistance of the single-family detached owner in lim-ited situations. As a general rule home-owner insurance will not cover water intrusion from storms (unless it is “wind-driven rain”), damage from surface water runoff, or misdirected sprinkler heads.

Most insurance policies will cover flooding resulting from “sudden and accidental” failure of supply line plumbing. No cover-age is afforded for pinhole or small leaks that cause damage over time.

Duplex and multi-unit townhome projects are typically created as planned developments. The difference between a planned development and a condominium is that the owner in a planned develop-ment has title to the land underneath the home and owns all elements of the home including the roof, slab, plumbing, etc. In a condominium project, the individual has separate ownership of only the airspace within the unit while all other elements of the project including the building and land are held in common ownership with the other owners.

In the duplex and multi-unit townhome project, the Association is generally charged with the responsibility of main-taining the building envelope or exterior of the property which would typically include the roof, painting, stucco or wood siding. The Association can be held respon-sible for water intrusion through those elements that it is responsible to maintain. Liability would not be automatic but require proof of negligence. In other words, the member must demonstrate that the Association failed to perform its main-tenance duties in accordance with the required standard of care in the industry. Liability would follow if the Association neglected to repair roofs after being informed of leakage, failed to perform routine inspections regarding conditions or failed to replace the roof once its useful life had expired. Generally, all plumbing is owned and maintained by the member and therefore the Association would not have any responsibility in the event of a plumb-ing failure which would include slab leaks, air-conditioning condensate lines, washing machine hoses, supply lines or drain lines.

The most complex and troublesome water intrusion issues to sort out happen in condominiums. A condominium building contains a mixture of Association and owner maintained plumbing facilities. Water intrusion typically does not affect just one unit owner but also involves com-mon area and often times adjacent owners and those below. These issues will be addressed in our next newsletter in part two of this article. n

There are times when owners do not agree with the decisions made by the Board of Directors with respect to maintenance, increases in assessments, and the like. Sometimes heated discussions occur during board meetings. Sometimes, these discussions continue outside of the board meetings and become overly hostile or even threatening. When this happens, a board mem-ber or members might be victims of harassment by disgruntled owners.

Anyone who has been the victim of a threat of physical violence or an immi-nent threat of the same can request the court to issue a Civil Harassment Restraining Order pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 527.6.

Before a judge will issue a restraining order to protect the board member, the judge must determine whether there is a “course of conduct”, “credible threat of violence” and/or “harassment” of the person requesting the restraining order.

A course of conduct is defined as a pattern of behavior composed of a series of acts over a period of time, however short, evidencing a continuity of purpose which includes, stalking, harassing calls or e-mails.

A credible threat of violence is defined as a knowing and willful statement or course of conduct that would place a reasonable person in fear for his or her safety, or the safety of his or her immediate family and that serves no legitimate purpose.

Harassment is defined as unlawful violence, a credible threat of violence, or a knowing and willful course of conduct directed at a specific person that seriously alarms, annoys or harasses the person and serves no legitimate purpose. The course of conduct must be one that would cause a reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress, and must actually cause substantial emotional distress.

Two separate court appearances are required to obtain the restraining order. At these hearings, the court will ask to hear testimony of both the victim and the accused. If the court determines that a restraining order should be issued to protect the board member, the order may include items such as: preventing the owner from harassing, talking, threatening, destroying personal property, contacting the board member, or directly or indirectly coming into contact with the board member. The restraining order may also specify the distance the owner must stay away from the board member.

If a board member in your community is the victim of harassment, please contact our office for an evaluation of whether a restraining order may be obtained on behalf of the board member. n

By Jamie Handrick, Esq.

yOUR ROLE IN mAINTAINING ATTORNEy-CLIENT pRIVILEGE,

hELpING TO SUppORT ThE wORK-pRODUCT DOCTORINE,

AND EFFICIENT DOCUmENT mANAGEmENT wILL GREATLy

ASSIST yOUR ATTORNEy’S EFFORTS AND pRODUCTIVITy.

Responsibility for Water Intrusion Continued from page 1

2 Kriger Law Firm Quarterly Newsletter · Fourth Quarter, 2014

Harassment of a Board Member Could Warrant a Restraining Order

Kriger Law Firm Quarterly Newsletter · Fourth Quarter, 2014 3

KLFNews_4thQtr'14-n.indd 2 1/6/15 3:44 PM

Fourth Quarter · 2014

Continued on page 2

Our attorneys and collection specialists are committed to providing you with professional and personal service.

In This Issue:

• Water Intrusion Responsibility

• 2014 Legislation Changes

• Litigation Support by Property Managers

• Board Member Harassment Consequences

Editor’s Note: This is a two-part article. The first installment will deal with water intrusion issues in single-family detached, duplex and townhome projects. Part two which will appear in our next newsletter will address the issues in sorting out responsibility for water intrusion in

condominium projects.

Sorting out responsibility for water intrusion is a difficult and complex task. When water causes damage to the interior of a home there are many factors to consider when determining whether the owner, Association or insurance carrier should pay. First, the type of housing must be considered. The allocation of responsibilities differs depend-ing on whether the home is single-family detached, attached duplex, multi unit town-home or stacked condominium. Second, the source of the water intrusion may be from roof leaks, poor drainage, misdirected sprin-kler heads, air-conditioning condensate lines,

icemaker lines, washing machine hoses, fail-ure of supply line plumbing, slab leak or fail-ure of drain lines. Third, the failure of plumbing lines can be “sudden and acciden-tal” or occur slowly over matter of months or years. Fourth, consideration must be given as to the classification of the property damage whether it is common area, unit or personal property.

Management will be faced with analyzing these issues in three basic types of properties. First and simplest is the planned develop-ment single-family detached home where the Association typically has no responsibility to maintain the owner’s property. Next is the multi-unit townhouse planned development where the Association is responsible for main-taining the exterior of the townhouses. Last and most complex is a condominium project where the Association is responsible not only for the exterior but also plumbing and struc-tural portions of the building.

The complexity of the problem increases as we progress from a single family detached

Continued on page 3

Visit our blog and be a part of the conversation.

2014 Legislation Brings Changes to HOAsBy Garrett Wait, Esq.

2014 was a difficult legislative year for common interest developments as California enacted a number of laws ostensibly designed to protect homeowners at the expense of their associations. Most

notably, the legislature took action to conserve water during California’s his-toric drought, pushing across several bills with significant restrictions on HOA water policies. Those bills along with several others with restrictive impact on association governance have created more legal landmines for HOAs.

Assembly Bill 2100 amended lan-guage in California Civil Code Section 4735 to disallow HOAs from fining homeowners for failing to water their

yards during a governor-decreed drought emergency. It also forces HOAs to allow water-efficient plants, but associations are still able to enforce weed, dead veg-etation, and grass-cutting provisions of

their rules and regulations. This legisla-tion was enacted and took immediate effect in Summer 2014.

Assembly Bill 2014 and State Bill 992 contained similar or identical language

as Assembly Bill 2100. However, AB 2104 extended the restrictions to include local water emergencies in addition to gover-nor-declared emergencies. SB 992 added a prohibition on fines for failing to pres-sure wash when required under an asso-ciation’s governing documents.

One bill that allows HOAs at least some respite is AB 968, which adds and amends Civil Code Section 4775 to make maintenance of exclusive use common area the sole responsibility of the owner who enjoys the benefit of that exclusive use common area. The one downside is that the new law will not take effect until January 1, 2017.

The most controversial new law enacted this year is AB 1738 which amends the Internal Dispute Resolutions

Corporate Office8220 University Avenue, Suite 100

La Mesa, CA 91942-3837(619) 589-8800 · FAX (619) 589-2680

Servicing San Diego, Riverside, San Bernardino and Los Angeles Counties

krigerlawfirm.com

email: hoalaw@krigerlawfirm.com

If you no longer wish to receive the Kriger Law Firm News,

please call (619) 589-8800 and let us know.

Continued on page 4

Managing Editor Joel M. Kriger, Esq.

Presort StandardU.S. Postage

PAIDPermit 751

San Diego CA

2014 Legislation ChangesContinued from page 1

Our Voice on the WebVISIT US TO LEARN ABOUT

OUR FULL RANGE OF SERVICES

krigerlawfirm.com krigerlawfirm.com/blog/

Check our Blog for the Most Recent News:krigerlawfirm.com/blog/

Sorting Out Responsibility for Water IntrusionBy Joel Kriger, Esq.

procedures between HOA boards and members. Civil Code Section 5910 has been amended to allow members who request IDR to bring an attorney or any other person to assist them in the IDR meeting.

This will have the effect of increasing cost to an associa-tion if a member’s attorney is present during IDR because the association’s attorney should be present as well. It also turns what is intended to be an informal process into a far more formal meeting between the HOA and a disgruntled member. CAI’s California Legislative Action Committee strongly opposed this new law, but the law was passed and signed despite the industry’s objections.

Assembly Bill 2561 allows homeowners to grow food crops for personal use in their backyards and exclusive use common areas. The bill specifically excludes marijuana growth, however, so HOAs should still keep an eye out for owners attempting to grow pot. Assembly Bill 2430 amends the law so that the costs of required disclosures must be paid by the seller at closing and the costs must not exceed the actual costs of production. The final bill which passed and will be made law is Assembly Bill 2188, which gives HOAs only 45 days to review and approve solar installation requests made by homeowners.

Homeowners associations must tread carefully with some of the changes in the law. If your board believes the HOA’s policies require legal review, please do not hesitate to con-tact the attorneys at Kriger Law Firm. n

2014 was a difficult legislative

year for common interest

developments in california.

Homeowners associations must

tread carefully witH some of

tHe cHanges in tHe law.

KLFNews_4thQtr'14-n.indd 1 1/6/15 3:44 PM