WINTER 2019
CALLING ALL CANDIDATES (or Not)
COMMUNICATING IN THE DIGITAL AGE Use social media and email wisely.
KIDS GONE WILD Daycare homes are permissible under California law.
GOING ROGUE What to do when board members act on their own without board approval or consent.
LIGHTS OUT How to enforce holiday lights and decorations By John D. Hansen, Esq.
H
oliday lights are a common sight from late November to early January, but as the holiday industry grows, larger displays are occurring at Halloween, Easter and Thanksgiving. The literal and figurative rise of inflatables has made holiday displays cheaper and easier, too. As long as these displays have existed, people have left them up too long to their neighbor’s dismay. When, how long, and how much is too far, and how can displays be regulated in a nondiscriminatory fashion? Continued on page 2
LIGHTS OUT Continued from front page
A PRACTICAL REVIEW OF COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT LAW
2019 CACM LAW JOURNAL EDITORIAL COMMITTEE CHIEF EDITOR
Fred Whitney, Esq. Whitney | Petchul ATTORNEY GUEST EDITOR
Dyanne Peters, Esq. Delphi Law Group, LLP COMMITTEE MEMBERS
Jim Judge, Esq. The Judge Law Firm
Mike Kennedy, Esq. Berding | Weil LLP
Zer Iyer, Esq. Angius & Terry LLP
Craig Combs, Esq. Wasserman Kornheiser Combs, LLP
Ian McDonald, CCAM Action Property Management, ACMC
Jill Morgan, CCAM Allure Total Management
Zayra Yves, CCAM-HR Northpoint HOA
2
THE LAW JOURNAL | W W W.C AC M .O R G
to encourage festivities but keep them from becoming a nuisance.
Reasonable Restrictions
Holiday Décor Versus New Lighting
California law allows associations to impose reasonable rules and regulations subject to an association’s governing documents. (Civil Code § 4340 et. seq.; see also, Yan Sui v. Price (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 933, citing Nahrstedt v. Lakeside Village Condominium Assn. (1994) 8 Cal.4th 361, 386 – “Whether a rule is reasonable ‘is to be determined not by reference to facts that are specific to the objecting homeowner, but by reference to the common interest development as a whole.’”) One such restriction may be to limit the size of decorations for safety reasons, such as not allowing large inflatables on a balcony that may blow away and hurt someone. Another issue may be property damage in areas maintained by the association. For example, if the association maintains gutters or exterior surfaces, you may want to limit how decorations can be attached to the buildings. Think of Clark Griswold using his stapler to attach thousands of lights to his house. Additionally, if the association maintains front yards, you may want to address when and where large displays can be set up. Holiday decorations can be attractive when the season is right, but once the season is over, they are unappealing, so it would be reasonable to limit the duration of displays, such as four weeks before and two weeks after the holiday. A current trend is noise-producing decorations, like a howling ghost or singing penguin, so another potential restriction could be to limit noise, such as by time of day or volume. The goal is
Is a string of “tube” lights left on a balcony 30 days after Christmas a holiday display or unapproved lighting? Some décor is clearly for a holiday, but the common use of tube lights or other ambiguous items should be addressed in rules. For example, once a season has passed, a remaining string of lights is either a prohibited holiday decoration, or an unapproved light improvement. If you wait long enough, it will go back to a permissible holiday display. A string of purple and orange Halloween lights may be a violation in November, but becomes permissible Christmas lights in early December. In this regard, the timing of taking action on a holiday display is critical as it is a revolving violation. Defining this in the rules will be helpful in making that determination and having a plan for enforcement. It should also be noted that noncommercial signs and flags are allowed year-round under Civil Code § 4710, so be careful not to demand the removal of a protected item. For example, a small Easter banner in a front garden could technically remain up all year as it is a noncommercial flag or banner.
Fair Housing Laws Regulating holiday decorations can help prevent unsightly homes, but doing it the wrong way could result in a fair housing claim. California and federal law prohibit discrimination on the basis of religion. (42 U.S.C.A. § 3601 et. seq., Cal. Govt. Code § 12955 et seq.; and Civil Code § 51 et seq.).
In other words, all holiday displays must be given equal treatment. Some holidays may not be religiously affiliated, but many are, and if holidays are treated differently based upon religious affiliation, it would be a form of discrimination. Christmas displays are traditionally up from Thanksgiving through shortly after New Year’s, or roughly six weeks. If that is allowed, other holidays would need to be given a six-week window of display as well. Specific rules cannot limit one religion over another, which would be if you allowed decorations for Christmas only, but not other holidays, or you prohibited a type of display affiliated with a particular religion, like prohibiting nativity scenes or the Star
of David. Some holidays may have a particular duration, so be mindful of a request to keep a particular display up for the duration of such a holiday as that may be required. On a related but slightly different topic, associations should be prepared to address SB 652, which was recently approved and protects religious items on doors. Such a display would not be a holiday display and will require separate treatment as provided in that new law that will take effect.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR John D. Hansen, Esq., is general counsel to community associations. He’s worked in the industry for 10 years and an attorney with Baydaline & Jacobsen LLP.
CALLING ALL CANDIDATES (or Not)
By Rosalia Burgueño Tapia, Esq.
T
he board of directors of a homeowners association is the governing body of the association, responsible for the adoption and implementation of major policies, rules, and decisions that affect all members. As such, being a board member is an important position with much responsibility and power. To that end, getting the best people to serve on the board is something that benefits the association. The question, then, becomes, how to get the best people on the board? Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on how one sees the role of the legislature
in association affairs), current law does not provide clear direction on board member qualifications. Civil Code § 5105 of the Davis-Stirling Act simply states that the association “shall adopt rules… that specify the qualifications for candidates for the board and any other elected position, and procedures for the nomination of candidates, consistent with the governing documents.” This general mandate leaves many associations unclear as to what exactly can and cannot be required of candidates who want to serve on the board. Most association governing documents
(typically, bylaws) contain candidate qualification provisions that are considered standard or universally accepted, such as: must be a member of the association, must be a member for at least one year, be a member in good standing (i.e., not in violation of the governing documents), and only one member from the same separate interest can serve at a time. Some board candidate qualification provisions that are not so standard, but are being used by some associations include: no convicted felons, no members who are involved in litigation with the association or its board members, and a pledge to sign an ethics policy, to name a few. Continued on page 4 THE LAW JOURNAL | W W W . C A C M . O R G
3
CALLING ALL CANDIDATES GUEST EDITOR’S NOTE By Dyanne L. Peters, Esq. The end of the year is upon us! Winter holiday merriment and “cooler” weather may lift any Scrooge’s spirits but may not be enough to distract from the problems prevalent in your association. This winter issue is focused on disruptions found in associations (regardless of the time of year) and suggests some strategies to handle and minimize those disruptions. Rogue board members may be testing the fortitude of some managers and this issue touches on how to deal with such board members and addresses implementing director qualifications. Another article discusses how manager communication can help prevent conflict and handle social media challenges. This edition also delves into issues that arise during the holiday season associated with holiday decorations and provides guidance when dealing with in-home day cares in the association. Finally, some of the articles touch on pending legislation that may go into effect next year. The Committee would like to thank the authors for tackling these issues and providing an insightful and informative take on these nuanced topics. The articles are meant to provide managers with some information and tools to combat these tricky and prevalent issues whether during the holiday season or any time of year!
Dyanne L Peters, Esq., is with the Delphi Law Group, LLP. She’s been in the industry two years and practices in San Diego, but her firm also services Orange County, Riverside and the Desert.
4
THE LAW JOURNAL | W W W.C AC M .O R G
Continued from page 3
What Qualifications Are Permitted? As mentioned above, there is no clear cut answer. However, what is clear is that they must be reasonably related to the duties of a director. In determining the validity of association actions, case law has held that the criteria for testing the reasonableness of an exercise of power by an association are (1) whether the reason for the action is rationally related to the protection, preservation, or proper operation of the property and the purposes of the association as set forth in its governing instruments and (2) whether the power was exercised in a fair and nondiscriminatory manner. For example, the prohibition of a candidate who is involved in litigation with the association/board members would likely be upheld, if challenged. The rationale is that there would be a conflict of interest given that the candidate is in an adversarial position with the association/board member and that could have a direct impact on being able to perform board duties. The would-be board member would have to recuse himself from board meetings pertaining to the litigation and any other matters tangentially related to the litigation, making governance difficult. So, where should director qualifications be listed: in the bylaws or election rules? The most common document containing director qualifications is the bylaws, as the bylaws set forth the procedures relating to association corporate governance and management. While it is perfectly acceptable (not to mention typical, up until the passage of Civil Code § 5105 in 2012, which requires the adoption of election rules) to list director qualifications in the bylaws, it is not recommended, in this author’s opinion. The reason being that if the association wants to delete or add qualifications set forth in the bylaws, a formal amendment voted on by the members is required. If they are listed in the ezlection rules, the advantage is that the board can amend the rules by way of a board vote alone, subject to the notice and review period set forth in Civil Code § 4360. That certainly makes life easier for the board and less expensive for the association. Regardless of which governing document contains director qualifications, it is imperative that the association have them listed somewhere. If they are not listed anywhere, then they do not exist, which means few, if any, requirements can be imposed.
Senate Bill 323 With regard to board member qualifications, Senate Bill 323, which was signed by Governor Newsom, mandates disqualification of a nominee if the person is not a member of the association at the time of nomination.
Additionally, it permits an association, through its bylaws or election rules, to disqualify nominees if the person: (1) discloses or if the association is aware of a past criminal conviction that would either prevent the purchase of a fidelity bond should the person be elected or terminate the association’s existing fidelity coverage as to that person if elected; (2) is not current in the payment of assessments (subject to certain conditions); (3) would serve at the same time as a co-owner; or (4) has been a member of the association for less than one year. The bill will require many associations to amend their bylaws, which can be a long and expensive process. For these reasons (among others), many industry groups are opposed to the bill. It is recommended that you contact legal counsel for advice on compliance with the new law.
Having clear and specific director qualifications in the election rules is the best practice, not to mention required. Following this best practice recommendation makes dealing with challenges easier as the requirements are in writing. The key is transparency and uniform application.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR Rosalia Burgueño Tapia, Esq., specializes in homeowners association law at Pratt & Associates, APC. She works in Los Gatos and has been in the industry for 19 years.
KIDS GONE WILD Daycare homes are permissible under California law. How you can ensure they meet regulations. By Constance Trinh, Esq.
A
community manager receives reports of a daycare operating out of a home within the community. Residents observe the flurry of chaotic activity each morning and evening, as a dozen parents hurry to drop off or pick up their children, often parking in fire lanes or blocking traffic. Excited screams of entertained tots can be heard from neighboring homes throughout the day. Management is further concerned that the activity may violate the CC&Rs prohibition against nonresidential or commercial activity within the community.
California Public Policy Favors Family Daycare Homes An association may not prohibit the operation of a daycare within a residence. The California legislature has limited the extent a deed use restriction may be used by an association to prohibit an owner or a tenant from operating his or her residence as “family daycare home.” Continued on page 6 THE LAW JOURNAL | W W W . C A C M . O R G
5
KIDS GONE WILD Continued from page 5 “… It is the public policy of this state to provide children in a family daycare home the same home environment as provided in a traditional home setting. The Legislature declares this policy to be of statewide concern with the purpose of occupying the field. This act, the state building code, and fire code, and regulations promulgated pursuant to those provisions, shall preempt local laws, regulations, and rules governing the use and occupancy of family daycare homes. Local laws, regulations, or rules shall not directly or indirectly prohibit or restrict the use of a facility as a family daycare home, including, but not limited to, precluding the operation of a family daycare home.” (Cal. Health & Safety Code § 1597.40). For these reasons, the California legislature rendered void any restriction contained in an association’s governing documents that “restricts or prohibits directly, or indirectly limits, the acquisition, use, or occupancy of such property for a family day care home for children…” (Cal. Health & Safety § 1597.40(c)).
Daycare Home Defined A “daycare home” is defined as one that “regularly provides care, protection, and supervision for 14 or fewer children, in the provider’s own home, for periods of less than 24 hours per day, while the parents or guardians are away, and is either a large family daycare home or a small family daycare home.” (Cal. Health & Safety Code § 1596.78(a).) A small family daycare home provides care for up to 8 children, while a large family daycare home may care for up to 14 children. (Cal. Health & Safety Code § 1596.78(b) & (c).) While daycare homes must be licensed, the requirements under California law differ for small family and large family daycare homes, which are generally governed through local ordinances. (Cal. Health & Safety § 1597.44-46, 1597.465.)
Senate Bill 234 In order to meet the growing need for more affordable childcare, SB 234 was recently passed by the legislature and signed into law by Governor Gavin Newsom. Effective January 1, 2020, large family daycare homes will receive the same exemptions under local neighborhood zoning and permitting laws as small family daycare homes. This will remove the current requirement for zoning permits, which were previously prohibitive cost barriers to many providers for expanding to care for more children. The new law also confirms that childcare providers may file for protections under the Fair Employment and Housing Act if they are discriminated against.
6
THE LAW JOURNAL | W W W.C AC M .O R G
Reasonable Regulation of Daycare Homes While an association may not prohibit the operation of daycare homes, they are subject to reasonable regulations, which may include: • Licensing and Compliance. The daycare home must be required to obtain proper licensing and comply with all state laws and local ordinances related to operating procedures. (Cal. Health & Safety § 1597.54(a).) The association may require that any daycare operator within the community provide a copy of a valid license, which may be validated with the local Community Care Licensing Division Child Care Office. • Insurance. Daycare home operators should obtain liability insurance of at least $100,000 per occurrence and $300,000 in the total annual aggregate, or a bond in the aggregate amount of $300,000. The association may require that it be named as an additional insured (may be required to pay for any increased premium). Alternatively, and the more likely case, the daycare home may obtain an affidavit from all parents that they are aware that the daycare does not carry insurance. In such case, the association may consider purchasing its own insurance to cover potential liability. • Compliance with CC&Rs/Rules and Regulations. As the daycare home is located within the association, it is still subject to the governing documents and must comply with the association’s rules and regulations. For example, all the parents must follow the community’s parking rules during pick up and drop off. The daycare home also may not cause excessive noise that disrupts the peaceful and quiet enjoyment of other residents. Also, if the daycare home operator causes damage to the association’s common area, the association may be able to charge back the cost of repairs against the owner of the property. Please contact legal counsel if you’d like advice about a daycare home in your community. ABOUT THE AUTHOR Constance Trinh, Esq., is an attorney practicing community association law with Whitney | Petchul in Rancho Santa Margarita. She’s worked for six years in the industry.
be held personally liable and forced to defend a claim for breach of fiduciary duty without the benefit of insurance coverage or indemnification.
Prevention Is First Step
GOING ROGUE What to do when board members act on their own without board approval or consent. By Michelle A. Copeland, Esq.
Y
ou have likely seen it before, a board member “goes rogue” – meaning to act on one’s own against expectation or instruction, or to pursue one’s own interests. In the worst examples of this bad behavior, a board member may, without the board’s knowledge, execute contracts on behalf of the association, borrow money pledging the association’s assets as collateral, or unilaterally take action that requires member approval without first putting it before the board, let alone to a membership vote. (For a good example of a rogue board president making all of the above bad decisions, see Palm Springs Villas II HOA v. Parth (2016) 248 Cal.App.4th 268.) In other milder versions of “going rogue,” a board member may disrupt meetings, discuss private association or executive session board matters with members, or push a personal agenda. Any rogue behavior, from mild to wild, is cause for concern. If not controlled, the board and/or the board member may be liable for breach of fiduciary duty and monetary damages. The board member may even
One way to avoid these situations is to take affirmative steps to prevent rogue behavior in the first place. Board members are volunteers from various walks of life who (hopefully) wish to serve the best interests of the association and its members. When elected, they likely know little about how the association operates, applicable California law, and what the governing documents state. It is beneficial to educate new board members about their fiduciary duty and duties of loyalty and care to the association and its members. Board members must act equitably, in good faith, putting aside any self-interests, and make decisions based upon what they believe to be in the best interests of the association and the members. Remind the board that it only has authority to act as a group and encourage the board to strive for consensus and to act civilly towards one another. Above all, the board must comply with and seek to enforce the governing documents. Should a board member act otherwise, it could expose him/her, as well as the board, to criticism and even liability. If decisions of the board of directors are made in accordance with the governing documents and in fulfillment of the board members’ fiduciary duty, (which may include obtaining the advice of competent experts), those decisions should be afforded the protection of the Business Judgement Rule (California Corporations Code § 7231). By describing the important role of the board and the responsibility that comes with serving upon it, board members will hopefully take pride in coming together as a group for the benefit of the association members they serve and avoid acting independently.
Curbing Rogue Behavior If, despite the board’s and management’s best efforts to prevent improper conduct, a board member acts independently or inappropriately, the board, along with the manager, can take certain steps to curb such behavior before it gets further out of hand. The easiest first step is to address the behavior(s) directly with the board member. While this may not be comfortable for the manager or the board member, a little conversation goes a long way. Consider a one-on-one meeting in a neutral zone (like a coffee shop), to
THE LAW JOURNAL | W W W . C A C M . O R G
7
point out the concerns with the board member’s conduct. Be open and honest with the board member and listen to his or her comments as well, as that may shed light on the reason for the behavior. Oftentimes, the board member may not be aware of the issue and, although embarrassed, may correct the bad behavior. Unfortunately, a little heart-to-heart may not be enough. In that case, the board may consider forming one or more executive committees to handle specific board functions so that the rogue member is no longer involved in significant matters. For example, if the board is considering or proposing a costly project, such as landscaping or roofing throughout the community, a committee may be appointed and given the authority to handle and guide all aspects of that project, without approval from the rest of the board. An executive committee may also be appointed to handle and direct any litigation in which the association is involved. The committee can be given the power to meet and make decisions independently from the board and simply report to the board regarding the actions it has taken. On a note of caution, however, the Board should be conscious of the limits of committee authority. The goal, of course, is to limit a rogue
member’s involvement in the more important decisions to be made by the board and eliminate the risk of the rogue member leaking information and/or taking action on behalf of the board without board approval. If the member’s conduct is still not controlled, the board may ultimately consider adjusting the officers by vote of the fellow directors (i.e., making the board president a memberat-large), requesting the rogue member’s resignation or removing the member by recall vote of the membership or by court order. As always, the board should carefully review the association’s governing documents and/or consult with legal counsel before taking these steps. The above measures and options available to the association should nip bad behavior in the bud and foster trust and confidence in the board among members of the association.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR Michelle Copeland, Esq., is general counsel defense attorney for homeowners’ associations. She works for Hickey & Associates, P.C., in Mission Viejo. She’s served in the industry for two years.
COMMUNICATING IN THE DIGITAL AGE Use social media and email wisely. By Jeffrey A. Beaumont, Esq., and Tawnza M. Sofranko, Esq.
M
anagers communicate with homeowners, residents, tenants and vendors on a daily basis. Modern trends leading toward an increase in non-verbal communication inevitably result in risks of misunderstanding. The repercussions of unsuccessful communications can lead to frustration, conflict or even litigation. So, how can managers improve communication skills? This article aims to provide techniques and tools to improve communication skills, maximize positive interactions, and achieve mutual goals. Not only can effective communication reduce conflict, it can also promote positive interactions and build or strengthen relationships. First and foremost, being an effective communicator starts with self-awareness. Managers can be more effective facilitating communication and disseminating information when they are aware of their tendencies and how their thoughts, emotions and behaviors affect others. Consider, for example, your strengths and how to utilize
8
THE LAW JOURNAL | W W W.C AC M .O R G
them, your weaknesses and how to manage them, and how you manage your emotions. Second, identify who your audience is (i.e., homeowners, tenants, vendors, etc.). Next, consider the goals and needs of your audience. How can you achieve your goals and those of, for example, the homeowners simultaneously? Remember that homeowners want a voice in the community. Managers can foster positive relationships with homeowners by actively listening, asking questions, and displaying empathy. Communication is a two-way process which involves more than just giving information. Another key to successful communication is transparency. Sending informative notices to the community undoubtedly increases transparency. Proactive practices, such as providing advanced notice of scheduled maintenance work, advertising
community events, and clearly communicating various board action items, allow managers to better control homeowner reactions and manage expectations. Often times, providing homeowners with a broader range of information than that required by law will lead to positive responses and build trust. The Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act also provides guidelines to ensure that homeowners remain informed. For example, the Open Meeting Act (Civil Code §§ 4900-4955) requires transparency and establishes the framework for meaningful communications. As managers are well aware, associations are required to provide certain disclosures, such as annual budget reports and annual policy statements, as well as legal notice of board meetings, membership meetings, elections, rule changes, and alternative/internal dispute resolution procedures. Additionally, members have the right to be able to witness board deliberations (except those in executive session meetings). Notwithstanding, the law also continues to change to address the modern trends of electronic communication. For example, recall that pursuant to Civil Code §4040, disclosures required by law may now be delivered via email if the homeowner consents in either writing or email. While the use of email is most commonly used to communicate, there are other forms of electronic communication that associations are beginning to utilize. For example, it is becoming more common for associations to maintain a website, Facebook, Twitter or other similar platforms. Managers and boards must be cautious when using social media platforms to communicate with homeowners and residents. On the one hand, social media can be a quick and efficient form of communication and can provide an alternative to the costs of copying and mailing flyers and newsletters. However, there are also risks associated with the use of social media platforms to communicate with the residents of the community. Managers should keep in mind that there are still legal requirements for delivery of official association communications, pursuant to Civil Code §§ 4148, 4153. Although forms of communication, such as email and social media, are readily available and easy to use, managers should continue to exercise discretion before responding to an email or making a post. Keep in mind, email and other forms of social media can allow for more conversational interactions and communications often quickly escalate. Consider the negative implications of engaging in an email exchange with a frustrated or disgruntled homeowner. At times, it may be necessary to verbally communicate (i.e., in person or via phone) to avoid miscommunications. If this becomes necessary it is prudent to send the homeowner
an email or letter confirming the contents of your conversation to help ensure there are no misunderstandings. Additionally, social media posts should be given the same discretion as all official association notices. Best practices include proofreading, anticipating questions or concerns the post will prompt, and consulting legal counsel when necessary. By anticipating what concerns might come up, managers can set expectations and avoid an influx of emails and calls or, inevitable, unhealthy reactions. In light of the potential risks and liability created by the use of social media platforms, consider the following tips: • Use reader-friendly communications (i.e., informative but concise). • Maintain consistent channels of communication. • Limit, manage and restrict what content is provided online and protect privacy as necessary. • Avoid using forms of communication that allow readers to comment and provide feedback for others to read, i.e., the platform should be “oneway.” • Tailor the communication to the residents of the community; make it feel personalized. • Do not rely solely on technology; create opportunities for in-person communications (i.e., community events). • Remember, not all homeowners/residents are tech savvy. Last, but certainly not least, managers and boards should strongly consider adopting a social media and/or communication policy to ensure that communications manage risk and are made in the best interest of the association. The policy should establish what social media platforms may be used to post official association notices, who may post the notices (i.e., management, board designee, etc.), and clarify what content may or may not be posted.
ABOUT THE AUTHORS Jeffrey A. Beaumont, Esq., and Tawnza M. Sofranko, Esq., are attorneys with Beaumont Tashjian. They specialize in general counsel, litigation and assessment collection. They work out of Woodland Hills. THE LAW JOURNAL | W W W . C A C M . O R G
9
2019 LEGAL DIRECTORY ASSESSMENT COLLECTION SERVICES ALLIED TRUSTEE SERVICES Assessment Collection & Judgement Recovery Services Stefan Murphy Serving All of California For Over 26 Years 990 Reserve Dr., Ste. 208, Roseville, CA 95678 (800) 220-5454, Option 6 Fax (877) 294-0601 smurphy@alliedtrustee.com www.alliedtrustee.com ALTERRA ASSESSMENT RECOVERY Assessment Collection Services Steven J. Tinnelly, Esq. Your Association’s Assessment Collection Partner 27101 Puerta Real, Ste. 250, Mission Viejo, CA 92691 (888) 818-5949 ramona@tinnellylaw.com www.alterracollections.com FELDSOTT LEE PAGANO & CANFIELD Community Association Law Stanley Feldsott, Esq., Jacqueline Pagano, Esq., Eric S. Canfield, Esq. Laguna Hills | San Diego 23161 Mill Creek Dr., Ste. 300, Laguna Hills, CA 92653 (949) 729-8002 • Fax (949) 729-8012 ecanfield@cahoalaw.com www.cahoalaw.com UNITED TRUSTEE SERVICES Trusted Partners In Assessment Collections Lisa E. Chapman 696 San Ramon Valley Blvd., Ste. 353, Danville, CA 94526 (925) 855-8554 • Fax (925) 855-8559 clientservices@unitedtrusteeservices.com www.unitedtrusteeservices.com ATTORNEYS ADAMS STIRLING PLC Community Association Law, New Developments Adrian Adams | Jasmine Hale | Nathan McGuire | Laurie Poole LA, OC, IE, SD, SF, SAC, Palm Desert & Carlsbad 2566 Overland Ave., Ste. 730, Los Angeles, CA 90064-5603 (800) 464-2817 • Fax (310) 945-0281 info@adamsstirling.com www.adamsstirling.com
BERDING | WEIL LLP Construction Defect Litigation | Community Association Counsel Tyler Berding | Steve Weil | Chad Thomas | Andrea O’Toole Walnut Creek | San Diego | Costa Mesa 2175 N. California Blvd., Ste. 500, Walnut Creek, CA 94596 (800) 838-2090 • Fax (925) 820-5592 jjackson@berdingweil.com www.BerdingWeil.com CHAPMAN & INTRIERI, LLP General Counsel & Construction Defect Litigation John W. Chapman, Esq. 2236 Mariner Square Dr., Ste. 300, Alameda, CA 94501-6468 (510) 864-3600 • Fax (510) 864-3601 jchapman@cnilawfirm.com www.cnilawfirm.com COMMUNITY LEGAL ADVISORS INC. General Counsel & Assessment Collections Mark Guithues, Esq. & Mark Allen Wilson, Esq. Inland Empire | Orange County | San Diego 509 N. Coast Hwy., Oceanside, CA 92054 (760) 529-5211 • Fax (760) 453-2194 mark@attorneyforhoa.com www.attorneyforhoa.com EPSTEN GRINNELL & HOWELL, APC Community Association Law, Construction Defect, Litigation & Assessment Recovery Jon Epsten, Esq. & Susan Hawks McClintic, Esq. San Diego | Inland Empire | Coachella Valley 10200 Willow Creek Rd., Ste. 100, San Diego, CA 92131 (858) 527-0111 • Fax (858) 527-1531 jepsten@epsten.com • www.epsten.com
HICKEY & ASSOCIATES, P.C. Community Association Law David E. Hickey, Esq. 27261 Las Ramblas, Suite 120, Mission Viejo, CA 92691 (949) 614-1550 • Fax (949) 748-3990 dhickey@hickeyassociates.net www.hickeyassociates.net HUGHES GILL COCHRANE TINETTI, PC Community Association & Construction Defect Law Michael J. Hughes, Esq., John P. Gill, Esq., Amy K. Tinetti, Esq. Complete representation of community associations 2820 Shadelands Dr., Ste. 160, Walnut Creek, CA 94598 (925) 926-1200 • Fax (925) 926-1202 atinetti@hughes-gill.com www.hughes-gill.com THE JUDGE LAW FIRM Community Association Law James A. Judge, Esq. Arbitrators & Mediators, Assessment Collection Services 18881 Von Karman Ave Ste. 1500, Irvine, CA 92612 (949) 833-8633 • Fax (949) 833-0154 info@thejudgefirm.com www.thejudgefirm.com KRIGER LAW FIRM Community Association Law, General Counsel Bradley Schuber, Esq. 8220 University Ave., Ste. 100, La Mesa, CA 91942 (619) 589-8800 • Fax (619) 589-2680 bschuber@krigerlawfirm.com www.krigerlawfirm.com
FIORE RACOBS & POWERS, A PLC Community Association Law and Assessment Collections Janet L.S. Powers, Esq., Peter E. Racobs, Esq. & John R. MacDowell, Esq. The Recognized Authority in Community Association Law Orange County | Inland Empire | Coachella Valley | San Diego County (877) 31-FIORE • Fax (949) 727-3311 jpowers@fiorelaw.com • www.fiorelaw.com
LOEWENTHAL, HILLSHAFER & CARTER, LLP Community Association Law, Construction Defect & General Counsel David A. Loewenthal, Robert D. Hillshafer & Kevin P. Carter Woodland Hills | Santa Barbara | Westlake Village | San Luis Obispo 5700 Canoga Ave., Ste. 160, Woodland Hills, CA 91367-6579 (866) 474-5529 • Fax (818) 905-6372 info@lhclawyers.net • www.lhclawyers.net
GURALNICK & GILLILAND, LLP Association Law, Assessment Collections, General Counsel Wayne S. Guralnick, Robert J. Gilliland Jr. Serving Community Associations for Over 30 Years 40004 Cook St., Ste. 3, Palm Desert, CA 92211 (760) 340-1515 • Fax (760) 568-3053 wayneg@gghoalaw.com • www.gghoalaw.com
MASSIE-BERMAN, APC Full Service Community Association Law Jonathan D. Massie, Esq. & Andrew E. Berman, Esq. & Adam C. Flury, Esq. 3588 4th Ave., Ste. 200, San Diego, CA 92103-4940 (619) 260-9010 • Fax (619) 260-9016 jmassie@massieberman.com www.massieberman.com
RAGGHIANTI FREITAS LLP Community Association Law, Construction Defects & Mediation David F. Feingold, Esq. & Matthew A. Haulk, Esq. Serving Bay Area Communities since 1986 1101 Fifth Ave., Ste. 100, San Rafael, CA 94901-3246 (415) 453-9433 • Fax (415) 453-8269 dfeingold@rflawllp.com www.rflawllp.com RICHARDSON | OBER | DENICHILO LLP Community Association Law, Assessment Collections Kelly G. Richardson, Esq., Matt D. Ober, Esq. & Robert Denichillo Pasadena | Costa Mesa | Riverside (877) 446-2529 info@rodllp.com www.rodllp.com SWEDELSONGOTTLIEB Community Association Law, Construction Defect, Assessment Collection David C. Swedelson, Esq. & Sandra L. Gottlieb, Esq. Los Angeles | Orange County | Palm Desert | San Francisco l Ventura 11900 W. Olympic Blvd., Ste. 700, Los Angeles, CA 90064-1045 (800) 372-2207 • Fax (310) 207-2115 slg@sghoalaw.com • www.lawforhoas.com TINNELLY LAW GROUP Community Association Law Richard A. Tinnelly, Esq. & Steven J. Tinnelly, Esq. Orange County | Los Angeles | Palm Desert | San Francisco | San Diego 27101 Puerta Real, Ste. 250, Mission Viejo, CA 92691 (949) 588-0866 • Fax (949) 588-5993 ramona@tinnellylaw.com www.tinnellylaw.com WHITE & MACDONALD, LLP Community Association Law, Construction Defect Law Steven M. White, Esq., Rob D. MacDonald, Esq. & James P. Hillman, Esq. COST EFFECTIVE SOLUTIONS BASED ON EXPERIENCE 1530 The Alameda, Ste. 215, San Jose, CA 95126 (408) 345-4000 • Fax (408) 345-4020 info@wm-llp.com • www.wm-llp.com
WOLF, RIFKIN, SHAPIRO, SCHULMAN & RABKIN, LLP Community Association Law Daniel C. Shapiro, Esq., & Michael W. Rabkin, Esq. 11400 W. Olympic Blvd., 9th Fl., Los Angeles, CA 90064-1582 (310) 478-4100 • Fax (310) 479-1422 dshapiro@wrslawyers.com www.wrslawyers.com
THE NAUMANN LAW FIRM, PC Construction Defect Litigation William H. Naumann, Esq. Los Angeles •Orange County • San Diego • Riverside Counties 10200 Willow Creek Road, Ste. 150, San Diego, CA 92131 (844) 492-7474 • Fax (858) 564-9380 elaine@naumannlegal.com www.naumannlegal.com
CONSTRUCTION DEFECT ANALYSIS
ELECTION ADMINISTRATION
BERDING | WEIL LLP Construction Defect Litigation | Community Association Counsel Tyler Berding | Steve Weil | Chad Thomas | Andrea O’Toole Walnut Creek | San Diego | Costa Mesa 2175 N. California Blvd., Ste. 500, Walnut Creek, CA 94596 (800) 838-2090 Fax (925) 820-5592 jjackson@berdingweil.com www.BerdingWeil.com
THE INSPECTORS OF ELECTION Election Administration Kurtis Peterson 2794 Loker Ave. W, Suite 104, Carlsbad, CA 92010 (888) 211-5332 info@theinspectorsofelection.com www.theinspectorsofelection.com
FENTON GRANT MAYFIELD KANEDA & LITT, LLP Construction Defect Litigation & CID Education Charles R. Fendon, Esq. & Joseph Kaneda, Esq. California & Nevada 2030 Main Street, Ste. 550, Irvine, CA 92614 (877) 520-3455 • Fax (949) 435-3801 cfenton@fentongrant.com www.fentongrant.com MCKENZIE RHODY, LLP Construction Defect Analysis Daniel R. Ryan, Esq. Construction Defect Attorneys - Serving All of California 11620 Wilshire Blvd., 9th Fl., Los Angeles, CA 90025 (415) 637-4859 dryan@mrcdlaw.com • www.mrcdlaw.com THE MILLER LAW FIRM Construction Defect Analysis & Litigation Thomas E. Miller, Founding Partner & Rachel M. Miller, Senior Partner Serving Homeowners Associations Statewide for Over 40 Years San Francisco•Bay Area • LA •Orange County •San Diego •Inland Empire (800) 403-3332 rachel@constructiondefects.com www.constructiondefects.com
RESERVE STUDY FIRMS ASSOCIATION RESERVES Reserve Study Firm Carol Serrano Reserve Studies for Community Associations 6700 Fallbrook Avenue, Suite 255, West Hills, CA 91307 (800) 733-1365 cserrano@reservestudy.com www.reservestudy.com THE HELSING GROUP, INC. Reserve Study Firm Ryan Leptien Serving All of California 4000 Executive Pkwy., Ste. 100, San Ramon, CA 94583 (925) 355-2100 • Fax (925) 355-9600 reservestudies@helsing.com www.helsing.com VENDOR COMPLIANCE ASSOCIATION SERVICES NETWORK Vendor Compliance David Jeranko Vendor & Cyber Risk Management 24000 Alicia Pkwy., Ste. 17-442, Mission Viejo, CA 92691 (949) 300-3702 davidj@asn4hoa.com • www.asn4hoa.com