Attorney Guest Editor Fred Whitney, Esq. Whitney | Petchul
Jeffrey A. Beaumont, Esq. Beaumont Tashjian
Spring 2025 Law Journal Committee Members
Garrett Wait, Esq. Kriger & Schuber, APC
Daniel Heaton, Esq. DeNichilo Law, APC
Hamlet Vazquez, MCAM-HR Wilshire Terrace Co-Op
Spring 2025 Law Journal Editorial Committee Follow @CACMchat
Lorena Sterling, CAFM Community Association Financial Services (CAFS)
Brenda Hendricks, CCAM The Helsing Group Inc., ACMC
Shanne Ho, CCAM-HR.ND ProActive Professional Management
An archive of past issues can be found under Member Resources at CACM.org
The CACM Law Journal is a digital publication distributed four times per year to all members, in addition to supporters of the California Association of Community Managers.
DISCLAIMER: CACM does not assume responsibility for the accuracy of articles, events or announcements listed. Please be advised that the opinions of the authors who contribute to the Law Journal are those of the author only, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of CACM and other industry attorneys. Please note that in a constantly evolving industry there are frequently multiple interpretations of the controlling statutes and case law. The information contained in these articles is of a general nature and not intended as legal advice. If you have any questions, please discuss them with your association’s legal counsel.
Interested in advertising in CACM’s Law Journal?
Reach out to us at marketing@cacm.org
Guest Editor’s Note
Welcome to Spring 2025! I’m honored to have worked with the contributing authors and CACM’s talented staff to put together this very informative issue, which offers a closer look at the ongoing transformation of the legislative landscape.
This edition kicks off with a look into California’s evolving legislation impacting common interest developments. Electronic voting, a topic of growing significance, is explored in detail, alongside a focused look at the critical role of managers and inspectors of elections in its implementation.
Another key topic this issue addresses is the ongoing challenges in the insurance sector, from escalating costs to the barriers faced by consumers. Priced Out, Left Out and Just Plain Cancelled offers a look at current issues and a forward-thinking glimpse into the potential solutions.
This edition offers key insights into the legislative and industry shifts shaping the future.
SB 428, which targets workplace harassment, signals important shifts in the legal framework around employee rights and protections.
The Case Law Update offers an essential summary of recent rulings and decisions necessary for community managers to stay informed and effective in their guidance to the communities we serve.
As always, we are grateful for your continued engagement and the opportunity to serve as a resource for our members. We hope this edition provides the knowledge and insights to arm you with a deeper understanding of the legislative and industry shifts that will shape the future.
Thank you for the opportunity to be your Spring Issue Law Journal Guest Editor. It is truly an honor.
Jeffrey A. Beaumont, Esq. is the senior partner of Beaumont Tashjian, a fullservice community association law firm and he has been representing community associations for over 25 years.
BEYOND ELECTRONIC VOTING
KEY 2025 LEGISLATION EVERY HOA MANAGER SHOULD KNOW
While the primary focus of the residential community association management industry is AB 2159, which permits electronic voting, several other bills were signed into law in 2024 that managers should be aware of.
By Karyn A. Larko, Esq
SB 900
SB 900, which went into effect January 1, 2025, significantly amends Civil Code (“CC”) § 4775 to address the maintenance and repair of utility services in common interest developments. SB 900 also makes minor revisions to CC § 5550 and 5610. Specifically, SB 900 makes an association responsible for the repairs and replacement needed to restore interrupted utility services (i.e., gas, heat, water or electrical services) that begin in the common area even when the issue extends into a separate interest or exclusive use common area, unless the association’s CC&Rs expressly provide for a different allocation, or the utility provider or local government is required to perform the work.
SB 900 requires an association to commence the repair process necessary to restore utility service within 14 days of service interruption.
If an association has insufficient reserve funds to cover the needed utility work, SB 900 permits an association’s board to obtain a loan to cover these costs without a member vote. The board may also levy an emergency assessment to repay the loan. Like a board’s existing right to impose an emergency assessment under CC § 5610, before obtaining a loan, a board must pass a resolution containing written findings regarding the nature of the expenses and the insufficiency of reserve funding. This resolution must be distributed to the members via individual delivery with the notice of the emergency assessment. The association must also provide any other notices required by law or the association’s governing documents.
If a quorum of the board cannot meet within 14 days to address the repair process, then at the next duly noticed board meeting, the total number of directors in attendance shall constitute a quorum. If applicable, the meeting notice shall state that the board may meet with a reduced quorum.
The board may also vote to approve the work needed to restore the utility service by electronic means, including email. All records of the electronic vote constitute association records and are subject to member inspection for three years.
In the event an association fails to meet these SB 900 requirements, the association may be held liable for that failure, but individual board members may not be found liable.
An association is exempt from complying with SB 900 requirements if the association is located in an area affected by a federal, state or local state of disaster or emergency, provided the disaster or emergency materially affects the association’s ability to perform its utility repair responsibilities.
The legislature amended CC § 5550 to designate utility services as “major components” to the extent an association is obligated to repair or replace those lines by CC § 4775.
The legislature amended CC § 5610(b) to add operating costs as an extraordinary expense if health or safety hazards are discovered on site.
AB 2114
SB 326 (“The Balcony Bill”) established CC § 5551 as of January 1, 2020. Under CC § 5551, an association is, among other things, required to have a reasonably competent and diligent visual inspection of a random and statistically significant sample of the exterior elevated elements for which the association is responsible for maintaining or repairing at least
AB 2460
AB 2460 amends 2023’s AB 1458, which provided that if an association requires a quorum for director and/or recall elections, the association must provide the membership with general notice of the date, time and location of the meeting at which the quorum will be determined, and a statement that the board may adjourn the meeting for at least 20 days if the association fails to achieve quorum. If an association does not reach quorum for a director election, the association may adjourn the meeting to tabulate the votes for a minimum of 20 days. Unless the association’s governing documents authorize a lower quorum, the quorum for the adjourned meeting drops to twenty percent (20%). General notice of the adjourned meeting must contain the following: (1) the date, time and location of the adjourned meeting, (2) the list of candidates, (3) a statement that the quorum requirement is reduced to 20% and (4) that the ballots will be opened if the 20% quorum requirement is reached. The association must provide this notice to members not less than 15 days prior to the adjourned meeting.
once every nine years. Previously, only licensed architects and structural engineers were permitted to perform these inspections.
Effective immediately, AB 2114 amended CC § 5551 to permit licensed civil engineers to perform these inspections rather than limiting the inspections to architects and structural engineers.
PRACTICE TIP
Encourage your boards to consult with legal counsel for more details regarding how the new legislation will impact their association and, in the case of SB 900, whether amendments should be made to the governing documents to prevent or otherwise address this impact.
AB 2460, which went into effect January 1, 2025, does not substantively change the law. Rather, it clarifies the changes to CC § 5115 and Corporations Code § 7512 made last year by AB 1458. Specifically, AB 2460 further clarifies that the 20% quorum for board elections and the related notice requirements only apply to incorporated and unincorporated associations with governing documents that impose a quorum requirement of more than 20% for reconvened meetings to elect directors, that members can call for a reconvened meeting, and that the notice that must be provided to the members at least 15 days in advance of the meeting date refers to the reconvened meeting date. Finally, AB 2460 clarifies that 20% of an association’s members, voting in person, by proxy, or secret ballot will satisfy quorum for the election of directors at a reconvened meeting and that the ballots will be counted if quorum is reached.
Karyn A. Larko, Esq. is an attorney at Epsten APC based out of San Diego, California. Larko specializes in community association counsel with 16 years of experience in the industry.
REVOLUTIONIZING HOA ELECTIONS: AB 2159 and the Shift to Electronic Voting
By Stephen Levine, Esq.
Assembly Bill 2159 amended California Civil Code § 5105, 5110, 5115 and 5120, regarding elections. The Civil Code now allows community associations to conduct electronic voting for board elections, governing document votes and votes to approve exclusive use of common area transfers. However, traditional (paper) ballots are still required for elections regarding regular or special assessments. Under the law, membership approval will not be required for electronic voting, but communities will be able to “adopt election rules to allow for an inspector of elections to conduct elections electronically.”
While associations are not required to use electronic voting, if they choose to, they will be required to update their election rules to adopt either an opt-out or an opt-in voting system. If the association adopts an “opt out” system, electronic voting is the default and members must be allowed to opt-out so that they receive a paper ballot instead. For an “opt-in” system, the default remains as a paper ballot and members are provided an opportunity to opt in if they want to vote digitally. The bill further requires the association’s election operating rules to require any member to change their preferred voting method at least 90 days before an election. In addition, it requires that any optout request from a member be submitted in writing. This raises a concern that if a member wants a written ballot but does not realize they need to submit a written request for one, they could be disenfranchised.
ELECTRONIC VOTING AUTHORIZED
A board of directors, at its option, may authorize any election to be conducted by electronic voting, except for elections involving the approval of assessments. An election by electronic voting where the members may opt out may be announced to the general membership at any time, subject to the following conditions:
u Upon notification that electronic balloting will be used in any election, members shall be informed that they may opt out of electronic voting and receive a mailed ballot. A member must opt out at least 90 days before an election.
u Separate written ballots will be provided to members who opt out of electronic voting or any member for whom the association does not have an email address.
u The community manager will need to maintain the voting list to identify which members will vote by electronic secret ballot and which members will vote by written secret ballot.
ANNUAL DISCLOSURE OF OPT OUT OR OPT IN PROCEDURES
An association must disclose annually the procedures to either opt out of or opt into electronic voting in its year-end policy statement distributed pursuant to Civil Code § 5310.
INDIVIDUAL NOTICE OF OPT OUT DEADLINE
For elections under the opt-out system, at least 30 days before the deadline to opt out of electronic voting (which itself is 90 days before the election), the association must provide individual notice to members of the following: 1) the member’s current voting method, 2) the email address of the member that will be used for voting by electronic secret ballot (if that is the member’s voting method and the association has an email address for the member), 3) an explanation that the member is required to opt out of voting by electronic secret ballot if the member elects to vote by written secret ballot, 4) an explanation of how a member may opt out of voting by electronic secret ballot and 5) the deadline by which the member is required to opt out of voting by electronic secret ballot if the member elects to exercise that right.
A homeowner is permitted to change their preferred method of voting from electronic secret ballot to written ballot or written ballot to electronic secret ballot up to 90 days before an election.
ADDITIONAL DUTIES OF THE INSPECTOR OR INSPECTORS OF ELECTION
In addition to the Civil Code § 5110 requirements, the inspector or inspectors shall provide each member voting electronically with the following:
u A method to authenticate the member’s identity to the internet-based voting system.
u A method to transmit an electronic secret ballot to the internet-based voting system that ensures the secrecy and integrity of each ballot.
u A method to confirm, at least 30 days before the voting deadline, that the member’s electronic device can successfully communicate with the internet-based voting system.
PRE-BALLOT NOTICE REQUIREMENTS
u At least 60 days before the election (i.e., at least 30 days before the secret ballots are mailed to owners), the association shall provide general notice of the items required by California Civil Code § 5115,
and if proceeding with electronic voting, the notice must also include:
u The date and time by which an electronic ballot must be transmitted to the internet-based voting system.
u Preliminary instructions on how to vote by electronic secret ballot upon commencement of the voting period.
u 30 days before the election, the association must deliver individual notice of the electronic secret ballot to each member voting electronically with instructions on:
u How to access the internet voting system.
u How to vote electronically.
This delivery may be accomplished by electronic submission to an e-mail address designated by a member.
NOTE: If the association does not have a member’s email address by the time ballots are distributed, the association will be required to send the member a written secret ballot instead. If the association is using electronic voting, then the electronic secret ballot and any written ballot must contain the same list of items or candidates being voted on.
GOVERNING DOCUMENT AMENDMENTS
For elections to approve governing document amendments, the association may deliver the required text of the proposed amendments electronically to those members who vote by electronic ballot. Upon request, the association shall deliver a printed copy of the amendments to any owner without charge.
ELECTRONIC VOTES
Similar to a written ballot, an electronic ballot is irrevocable. It is effective when transmitted to the address or system designated by the inspector. No one shall open or otherwise review any tally sheets of votes cast by electronic secret ballots before the noticed time and place at which the ballots are to be counted and tabulated. In addition to the other election materials maintained by an inspector after the election, the inspector shall retain a tally sheet of votes cast by electronic secret ballot.
IMPORTANT NOTE
Please remember that election rules cannot be changed within 90 days of an election. Also, if the association is utilizing electronic voting, there shall be no nominations of candidates from the floor of membership meetings.
While associations are not required to use electronic voting, if they choose to, they will be required to update their election rules to adopt either an opt-out or an opt-in voting system.
Stephen Levine, Esq. of The Judge Law Firm in Irvine has 25 years of experience in community association and real estate law.
HOA
MANAGERS INSPECTORS &
OF ELECTION IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF ELECTRONIC VOTING (AB 2159)
By Frederick T. Whitney, Esq. and William Curry, Esq.
Forward: Readers Beware!
Generally, CACM Law Journal articles strive to reflect the consensus position of the industry with less-established trends or issues expressly called out for the purpose of making the reader aware of unsettled issues or potential pitfalls. With electronic voting, however, there is no consensus yet because electronic voting is in its infancy.
The new election laws are mostly permissive in nature (something good for the industry, to be sure) but they do not describe specific methods for implementing an effective electronic voting system. Thus, they leave much room for invention. To state the obvious, the industry would benefit greatly if a consensus can be built pertaining to electronic voting practices. Without such consensus, associations will develop widely varying systems, which may become an administrative nightmare.
To start building this consensus, this article discusses best practices in implementing an effective electronic voting system. The authors invite further discussion on how the industry can develop and improve these systems.
Introduction
Assembly Bill 2159 introduced a general framework for conducting electronic voting in California common interest developments. Effective January 1, 2025—and at least 90 days following an association’s adoption of election rules permitting electronic voting—an electronic ballot may be used to conduct virtually every type of membership vote. The only exception is a vote to approve assessment increases beyond the authority granted to a board in Civil Code § 5605.
The new laws do not mandate electronic voting. Instead, they simply permit a board to authorize electronic voting in the association’s election rules when it decides an electronic vote is appropriate. This begs the following question: Why would an association want to allow electronic voting at all?
Electronic voting is not likely to provide immediate cost savings, particularly for smaller associations, although the cost may decrease as improved processes are developed and members consent to receive election notices via email. It may eventually increase member participation and improve voter confidence in the integrity of the election process. It thus seems likely that electronic voting will become increasingly popular over time.
MANAGEMENT’S ROLE
Management companies will need to do the following for their clients who allow electronic voting:
1. Track each member’s “preferred voting method” (i.e., digital versus paper ballots);
2. Track the email address(es) each member uses for electronic voting, if any;
3. Include in the association’s annual statement an explanation of how a member can update their voting preference;
4. Generate a voter list that includes members’ voting preferences;[i] and
5. For those clients who adopt an opt-out voting system (described below), be able to generate a pre-election letter or, at least, provide the information needed for the inspector of election to do so.
Continues on page 10
E-VOTING IMPLEMENTATION
Continued from page 9
A. PREFERRED VOTING METHOD
The new laws contemplate two distinct types of electronic voting systems: an opt-out system or an opt-in system. For an opt-out system, the election rules establish digital ballots as the default preference for all members but allow individual members to opt out by notifying the association that they choose instead to continue receiving a paper ballot. For an opt-in system, the election rules establish paper ballots as the default preference for all members but allow individual members to opt in by notifying the association that they choose instead to vote electronically.
The opt-out system seems more likely to encourage member participation in electronic voting, which is presumably the goal if an association adopts election rules that permit electronic voting. An opt-out system requires the association to provide a pre-election letter[ii] to all members, which increases the workload for management or the inspector of election and adds the cost of an additional mailing to the association’s election expenses. The opt-in system might not encourage participation as readily and has the same expense as the opt-out system, but no pre-election letter is required. The statute seems to contemplate that each property will be associated with only one voting method regardless of the number of individual owners.
B. MEMBER EMAILS
The newly amended law requires an association’s rules to state that a member who votes by electronic secret ballot must provide a valid email address[iii] The law does not specify how such emails are to be collected or maintained, or whether the owner may provide more than one valid email (i.e., both a primary and a secondary email address). Based on the law’s use of the term “valid email”, it seems that the Legislature was mirroring the language it used in Civil Code § 4041.
Given that the management industry has already created systems for capturing members’ email addresses under Civil Code § 4041 (e.g., an online portal where members may update their contact information or a form that members may complete and return), it would be most efficient to use these existing systems to comply with the new law. The alternative is to create a new data field in each member’s file for email addresses used for voting that is separate from email addresses already collected.
Capturing a member’s voting preference alone will not result in cost efficiency. Rather, the greatest cost efficiency will come from obtaining a member’s consent to receive all election notices via email because that eliminates the cost of printing and mailing a ballot and two envelopes to each member[iv]
There is presently some discussion over whether a member is limited to defining a single specific email (e.g., the “primary” email collected under Civil Code §4041), or whether a member can provide multiple emails (e.g., both a “primary” and “secondary” email) [v]. The software presently available to inspectors conducting electronic voting in California is limited, but such software already has the capacity to associate multiple emails related to a single address and to automatically lock out additional votes after the first vote has been cast by any owner of a residence.
In sum, our industry would benefit from using its existing system for capturing a member’s contact information to include the email address(es) used for voting. Allowing any of the email addresses captured (primary and/or secondary) to be used for voting would be simple to explain to members and mirror the paper ballot system that allows any owner on title to cast the ballot for a residence. Specifying the primary email address as the only one used for voting can work as well, but this requires the member to create primary and secondary email preferences and would create an administrative burden when secondary emails are rejected by the voting system.
C. ANNUAL MAILER AND VOTER LIST
The newly amended Civil Code § 5105(i)(1)(D) requires that an association include information on “… the procedures to either opt out of or opt into voting by electronic secret ballot, as applicable, in the annual statement prepared pursuant to Section 5310. …” The best reading of this new obligation prioritizes efficiency by avoiding an interpretation that requires management companies to tailor annual disclosures to match each client’s specific voting system. Rather, the annual disclosure should contain a clear description of how a member may update their voting preference regardless of the type of voting system. A model disclosure might look something like the following:
“In the event that your Association has authorized electronic voting for any particular vote, you may log into the resident portal to update your membership preferences to either opt in or opt out of electronic voting.”
Management must be prepared to forward membership information to a professional inspector in an efficient manner. This will likely take the form of a digital file containing the following information for each property:
1. The property address;
2. The names of all owners of record;
3. The owners’ voting preference;
4. The owners’ communication preference for notice; and
5. Any email address(es) associated with the address.
A file containing this information will also satisfy the association’s obligation to produce a voting list[vi] Ideally, the system will allow management to generate a list backdated to a prior date.
D. THE PRE-ELECTION LETTER
Newly amended Civil Code § 5105 requires an association that adopts an opt-out electronic voting system to send a pre-election letter to each member of the association[vii]. This letter must be sent via individual delivery at least 30 days prior to the deadline to opt out, which is 90 days prior to the election[viii]. The notice must include:
1. The member’s preferred voting method;
2. The email address(es) of the member that will be used for voting;
3 The deadline for opting out, which is 90 days prior to the election;
4 An explanation that the member is required to opt out of voting before the deadline; and
5 A description of how the member may opt out.
Sample text for the pre-election letter:
“The association’s records reflect your current preferred voting method as [insert preference] The emails associated with your account are [insert member email(s)]. You may change your preferred voting method to either vote by “electronic ballot” or by “written ballot” and/or update your email address(es) and communication preferences by logging into the community portal. The deadline to opt out of electronic voting and/or to change your preferred voting method is 90 days prior to the Annual Election, which is set for [insert election date].”
The above letter must be tailored to the specific preference and email(s) used by each member. The notice itself can either be produced and sent by management or by the professional inspector of election with the membership information provided to them.
THE INSPECTOR’S ROLE
The most challenging requirements of the new laws fall squarely upon the inspectors of election, who must design software that complies with all the new obligations created in Civil Code § 5110. The following is a summary of the inspector’s new obligations and the challenges each presents.
1. AUTHENTICATION OF THE MEMBER’S IDENTITY AND TRANSMISSION OF A RECEIPT. Methods of authentication can vary. They can be as simple as sending a unique identifier to the member (not unlike a temporary password) or can be as elaborate as requiring the member to log into their association account before navigating to the inspector’s website.
Many inspectors have been conducting electronic votes without using a member’s email at all. The statute suggests that the Legislature intended emails to be used in the authentication process in some manner, so it is likely they will be. Ultimately, the precise method will be driven by inspectors as they create their software. Legal counsel should consider drafting election rules broadly so that inspectors have discretion to determine the exact authentication process.
For example, a software system could allow a member to input a unique identifier that triggers an automatic verification email to the member’s email address(es) provided by management (e.g., email addresses collected in response to a Civil Code § 4041 request). This system would mimic that used by credit card companies to confirm that a password has been changed on an existing account. Alternatively, the inspector might use software that allows each member to use one of the emails provided by management with an assigned, temporary password.
Inspectors will also have to accommodate situations where an owner owns multiple properties within a development and wants to use the same email address for all of them and determine whether to set a deadline for a member to update an email address. The Civil Code makes clear that a member cannot update their preferred voting method after the 90-day deadline but is silent as to the deadline for a member to add or update an email address.
In any event, the best practice will likely be to require the owner to update emails using the management company’s system (i.e., the Civil Code § 4041 process) to ensure that the update is valid under Civil Code § 4040 and to avoid member confusion relating to updates. Finally, the inspector’s software system must also send an email receipt to every member who votes electronically.
2. TRANSMISSION OF THE BALLOT WITHOUT ALTERATION.
Although the new law refers to a “method to transmit an electronic secret ballot,” it is unlikely any electronic voting system will be developed that
“transmits” a digital ballot. Inspectors will probably either draft proprietary software or purchase software that will allow members to cast votes directly within the inspector’s system (i.e., on the inspector’s website). Digital voting will likely involve either mailing or emailing a link that allows a member to log in on the inspector’s site to cast a vote.
Inspectors will also likely take an active role in sending election notices and links to websites where digital ballots may be cast. A link to the website can be sent on a postcard or within a letter that is mailed. Where members have provided consent, the link can be sent via email[ix]. Obtaining member consent should be a priority if cost savings are the goal because the inspector is required to send a paper ballot to any member who has not provide an email address[x].
3. CONFIRMATION THAT THE MEMBER’S DEVICE CAN COMMUNICATE WITH THE INSPECTOR’S SYSTEM.
This seems to be one of the simpler obligations. It might be satisfied by providing a button for a member to press that generates an automatic confirmation email or by setting up a sample ballot for the member to practice casting.
4. PERMANENT SEPARATION OF ANY IDENTIFYING INFORMATION FROM THE BALLOT ITSELF.
This is a new requirement. In the past, inspectors generally did not destroy electronic files received during the voting process. Rather, they simply respected member’s privacy. This new requirement mandates that software destroys its own record of the origin of voting data in a manner that does not permit reconstruction.
5. STORAGE AND KEEPING OF ELECTRONIC SECRET BALLOTS.
Finally, the inspector will need to craft the system that produces unique ballots. For example, this might allow a member to review each of the digital ballots separately to determine which were cast cumulatively or to see any patterns. Apparently, there are out of state systems that simply generate a final tally and are not capable of reconstructing individual ballots.
[i] Civil Code §5105(i)(1)(D) requires the association to: “… maintain a voting list identifying which members will vote by electronic secret ballot and which members will vote by written ballot and include information on the procedures to either opt out of or opt into voting by electronic secret ballot, as applicable, in the annual statement prepared pursuant to Section 5310.
[ii] Civil Code §5105(i)(4).
[iii] Civil Code §5105(i)(1)(E).
[iv] The newly amended Civil Code §5105(i)(1)(C)(i) requires the association to mail a written paper ballot to any member who has opted out of voting by electronic ballot “… or for whom the association does not have an email address required to vote by electronic secret ballot.”
[v] Civil Code §4041.
[vi] Civil Code §5105(i)(1)(D) & §5200(c).
[vii] Civil Code §5105(i)(4).
[viii] Civil Code §4040.
[ix] Civil Code §5105(i)(2) provides: “… An electronic secret ballot may be accompanied by or contained in an electronic individual notice in accordance with paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of Section 4040.”
[x] Civil Code 5110(i)(1)(C)(i).
Frederick T. Whitney, Esq. has been a part of the industry for over 20 years and is a founder at Whitney | Petchul APC. He presently serves as counsel to some of the largest master planned communities in California and as Chief Editor of the Law Journal.
William Curry, Esq. was admitted to the California State Bar in 2018 and received his Juris Doctor degree the same year. He has been involved in a number of new developments at Whitney | Petchul APC but prior to joining he served as Orange County’s deputy sheriff for 12 years.
PRICED OUT, LEFT OUT AND JUST PLAIN
CANCELLED Current Insurance Challenges and a Glimpse at the Future
By
One of the greatest challenges facing common interest developments in 2025 is securing and paying sufficient insurance, particularly property insurance for condominium common areas. California has billions of dollars of property that needs insurance. As losses piled up between 2017 and 2022, carriers tightened their underwriting criteria, limiting the number of properties they would insure or left the state entirely to stay solvent. This constriction in the insurance marketplace left many without affordable or adequate insurance, and too often, no insurance options at all.
After several years of wildfires and other natural disasters, carriers are charging higher premiums, revising eligibility requirements regarding infrastructure and scrutinizing insurance applications more closely.
One recent client provides an all-toocommon example. Built in 1968, this 101-unit community has always been well cared for. The board of directors spends copious amounts of time following the recommendations of the reserve study to prevent deferred maintenance. The board was quite surprised when they received a nonrenewal notice from their insurance carrier in 2023. They did not have large property losses and are not in a wildfire risk zone. The reason for the non-renewal? Galvanized plumbing
pipes and electrical panels that are on a “fire-risk” list. Their yearly insurance premium went from $35,000 to $188,000 per year. They were forced to pass a special assessment of over $1,500 per unit to pay for the drastic increase, and they must replace the risky electrical panels and re-pipe the community. The out-of-pocket expense to each owner just for the electrical panels was $800 - $1,000.
1. STATE OF THE CID INSURANCE
MARKET: HOW DID WE GET HERE? How did we get here? First, insurance carriers had their income squeezed through years of under-charging due to Proposition 103. Prop 103 was passed in 1988 as a consumer protection bill that required insurance carriers who wanted to increase their rates for property insurance over a certain percentage to undergo an intervenor process. This process was very costly and time-consuming, so most carriers kept their increases to just under the noted percentage. Fast forward 40-ish years and the premiums have not kept up with inflation or business costs. As carriers cannot rate for the risk properly, they end up leaving the state.
Next, insurance carriers were squeezed on the claims side by increased claims and losses. The property insurance carriers had tremendous losses following the 1989 Loma Prieta and 1994 Northridge
earthquakes, and all the wildfires up and down the state over the last few years. These devastating wildfires are projected to increase with climate change and additional development close to wildfire zones.
In addition to the increased claims, the cost of repairs and replacement has also increased. The cost of building materials had jumped significantly even before the COVID-19 pandemic, and the inflation rate has only accelerated since then. Construction costs are also affected by high labor costs, which are driven by California’s high cost of living.
2. ANOTHER
FACTOR: AMBIGUITY IN “FIRE” DEFINITION FOR PROPERTY DAMAGE/ WILDFIRE COVERAGES
Carriers are creatively finding ways to write insurance in California while reducing their risk enough to remain profitable. One way of managing risk is to spread different insured risks over multiple carriers so that each takes only a small part of the risk, ensuring that none of them bears the lion’s share of the losses if one should occur.
We have seen examples of this in the past, specifically in the flood and earthquake markets. Insuring the risk of a building being damaged by fire or earthquake was too great for most carriers, so the risk was
separated out, allowing different carriers to insure the same structure for different causes of loss.
This has already begun in the California insurance marketplace regarding fire vs. wildfire. Carriers have begun to separate wildfire as a risk from “regular” fire (e.g., kitchen fire, candle fire, chimney fire, etc.) so that different carriers can share the risk. This is especially helpful in areas with high wildfire risk that would not otherwise be able to obtain insurance.
But here’s where the wrench gets thrown in. Carriers are hesitant to offer these polices in California because the Department of Insurance (CDI) does not recognize the difference between “fire” and “wildfire.” In other words, they might hold a carrier that has excluded wildfire (so that another carrier can cover it) responsible for wildfire losses because there is no agreedupon definition of “wildfire” that everyone is happy with. One carrier may write a policy to cover the risk of “fire” (kitchen fires, etc.), only to find themselves liable to cover a wildfire loss. This is limiting the availability of these creative policies, and therefore delaying the recovery of the California insurance marketplace.
For California to increase the health of its insurance marketplace, we need to encourage more carriers to participate. We must reverse the
Michael Kennedy, Esq., Terri Guest, and Kimberly Lilley
restrictions and expand the options for insurance. Coming to an agreed-upon definition of “wildfire” can go a long way in helping that to happen. The policies are ready and waiting to be written. Let’s do what we can to invite them in.
3. AVAILABILITY OF COVERAGES, OR LACK OF…
Unfortunately, this has led to an insurance market in where the coverage the association had in the past (or that is required by the CC&Rs) is simply unavailable. The CC&Rs commonly specify the minimum policy limits for different coverages, such as Directors and Officers (D&O), General Liability and Property & Casualty.
The hardest market has been Property & Casualty, which includes fire insurance and other coverages to pay for damage to Association property. It’s important to review the CC&Rs and understand the required minimum policy limits. Is it “full replacement cost”? “As near as reasonably possible 100% of the current replacement cost”? Is there a lower percentage? Or is it left to the board’s discretion?
Managers and boards should work closely with their insurance broker at renewal time (or when facing cancellation) to obtain the required insurance. If it’s impossible to obtain the required
insurance at a reasonable rate, they should do the best they can, exercising their best judgment and consult with legal counsel.
In one recent example, an association in the Lake Tahoe area has CC&Rs requiring property insurance for full replacement value. The board solicited numerous quotes and conducted an extensive search. However, there was only one quote for full replacement value, and the premium was over $1 million annually. Using its best business judgment, the board could finally secure property insurance for a much more reasonable amount, but that did not cover the full replacement value.
Of course, a couple of homeowners still filed a lawsuit against that board because the new insurance did not meet the requirements of the CC&Rs. What is a board to do when the only policy that complies with the CC&Rs costs over $1 million annually? This is where the Business Judgment Rule comes into play. A board member is protected from liability for decisions they make, so long as they believe that decision is in the association’s best interests at the time it was made. There is no way to stop a lawsuit from being filed, but board members are protected if they do what they think is best for the association.
SO, WHAT IS AN ASSOCIATION TO DO?
The premium financing option discussed above is one possibility. Depending on the amount financed and the relationship with the insurance broker requesting the financing, they may be able to secure better rates. In most cases, there is no pre-payment penalty, meaning that if you can pay it off early, you can do so without any extra fees. Policies with smaller premiums such as, workers’ compensation, crime and D&O usually must be paid in full up-front. Because of this, these premiums are rarely included in financing agreements.
Regardless of how your community pays its insurance premium, the best plan is always to consider premium increases when budgeting. Plan for the worst-case scenario and hope your renewal is under budget when it comes in. Communities can make themselves more insurable by eliminating deferred maintenance, reviewing their reserve study to ensure that there are no “0” useful life items (especially those that deal with life safety items or building maintenance), and reviewing their loss history to make sure that old claims have been closed and reserves removed.
They have broad discretion in matters involving spending association funds. Of course, in these situations, boards should consult with, and rely on, the association’s legal counsel.
4. FUNDING INCREASED PREMIUMS
How does the association pay for all this? Premium financing companies are available, but their rates are high usually between 8% and 20% interest. Some communities with well-funded reserves have essentially provided their own financing. Since money borrowed from reserves must be paid back within one year, they can set up installment payments to pay themselves back.
Some carriers allow installment payments, but not many. Most banks will not provide a loan to pay for insurance premiums. We have heard rumblings that some banks are starting to, so check with yours for information. You can levy an emergency special assessment, but you can arguably only do that once (after that, it may no longer be considered an “emergency”). Remember, when a board passes an emergency special assessment, they must explain why they could not have foreseen this expense the last time they passed and distributed the budget.
Communities built in the 1970s or earlier should pay close attention to electrical panels, wiring and plumbing as these items are most likely to require replacement or updates.
All communities should start collecting information, including permits, on all upgrades completed either by the association or by individual homeowners. If the owners do not have records, permits can be requested as public record records. Inspections by qualified contractors may also answer some questions.
While these projects will be a lot of work, the benefit will be worth it. These next few years are going to be a wild ride when it comes to insurance.
Numerous challenges are emerging for common interest developments, but the cost of insurance is one of the big ones, if not the biggest. Help may come from the legislature, but that’s not guaranteed and is at least several years away. Between climate change and further development closer to wildfire zones, driven by pressure in the housing market, this issue will be with us for a while.
Michael Kennedy, Esq., partner at Berding | Weil LLP, represents homeowner associations, developers, contractors and insurers in California construction and real estate disputes. He also serves as general counsel for associations, handling document enforcement and litigation.
Guest and Kimberly Lilley both serve as directors at Berg Insurance Agency. Combined, Guest and Lilley bring just over 20 years of experience in the community association and insurance industry.
Terri
By A.J. Jahanian, Esq.
CaseLaw Update
Anomalies,oraSign of Things to Come?
Keeping up with trends, laws and regulations and the latest “do’s and don’ts” in the community association world can feel like trying to hit a moving target.
Often times, missing that proverbial target is as harmless as rescheduling an annual meeting (more on that later). Sometimes, however, failing to follow where the HOA winds are blowing, can have more dramatic consequences.
One way to keep track, is to follow court decisions in HOA cases and, particularly, “published” decisions (court decisions which are binding law). “Unpublished” decisions on the other hand, are not law, but can provide valuable insight by illustrating how courts address and think through various issues commonly faced by community associations. Some of these recent decisions—both published and unpublished—are discussed here:
Mays v. Oakview Homeowners Association
In this unpublished case, the Oakview Homeowners Association failed to reach quorum to hold an election for the board of directors from 2018 through 2022. This allowed the sitting directors to remain on the board, past their term limits under the association’s governing documents. Homeowner Mays filed a petition to compel an election in 2023 when again, due to lack of quorum, the election did not go forward.
In each annual meeting, when quorum was not reached, the board did not adjourn to a subsequent meeting. The association’s bylaws stated that if a meeting could not be held due to lack of quorum, the members present “may adjourn the meeting to a time not less than five (5) days nor more than thirty (30) days from the time of the original meeting.” The directors noted in their appeal that the governing documents were permissive, meaning that the members “may” adjourn the meeting, but it was not required.
The appeals court disagreed and held that, by failing to hold annual meetings and elect new board members whose terms had expired, the association did not adhere to its governing documents, and it abused its power.
While this decision did not produce binding precedent, it demonstrates that courts may be willing to require association boards to entertain a motion and actively pursue an adjourned meeting, when quorum is not reached at the annual meeting. At a minimum, Mays shows that after several years of failing to hold elections and replace directors whose terms had ended, and refusing to adjourn the meeting and try again, courts may be less sympathetic to the old “college try” argument.
Additionally, the Mays case aligns with recent legislation (AB 1458) enacted to make it easier to hold elections. AB 1458 amended Civil Code §4115 to establish a reduced quorum of twenty percent (20%) for adjourned election meetings, helping to alleviate the hurdle of homeowner apathy. Then, consider new legislation effective January 1, 2025 (AB 2159) which (finally) permits electronic voting in director elections and, clearly, the trend is ticking towards making it easier to hold elections and encouraging homeowner participation.
Boards should be mindful of these changes and strive to follow the democratic process outlined by their governing documents and new legislation, in order to avoid a Mays-like lawsuit.
Doskocz v. ALS Lien Services
In this unpublished decision, ALS Lien Services was retained by the Danville Green Homeowners Association to collect a delinquent homeowner’s unpaid assessments. ALS sent Doskocz a pre-lien letter and demand for payment in the amount of $1,239.08, and subsequently recorded the lien against his property.
Published decisions are binding, while unpublished decisions can still offer helpful guidance.
Thereafter, Doskocz agreed to a payment plan with the association. Note, Civil Code §5655(a) states that if a delinquent homeowner makes partial payments, those payments must first be applied to the assessments owed (i.e., the principal) and then, after the assessments owed are paid in full, payments can then be applied to other fees, such as attorney’s fees, late charges, interest, etc.
Doskocz’s payment plan agreement with the Association authorized it to apply his payments, in part, to collection fees and costs, interest, etc. ALS then did this, as Doskocz agreed. After making five payments under the plan, Doskocz still had a balance of $1,074.90, for which ALS proposed another payment plan that would end up totaling $2,033.19. Doskocz did not agree and instead, simply paid off the $1,074.90 balance. He then filed suit against ALS for violations of the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act (FDCPA).
The court ruled, among other things, that requiring the owner to waive §5655(a) of the Civil Code as part of his payment plan agreement, was improper and violated public policy goals of: (i) preventing foreclosures for small delinquencies and (ii) avoiding keeping owners buried in late fees and collection costs perpetually. In other words, by prioritizing partial payments to apply towards the assessment, the court argued that the Civil Code is intended to protect homeowners.
This case is a reminder that associations and their collection firms are “debt collectors” and subject to applicable federal and state debt collection law. Strict adherence to these regulations is critical (which has been the case since their inception). However, the Doskocz case also shows that courts can be deferential and sympathetic towards homeowners when interpreting unspecific parts of the Civil Code, even when homeowners agree to specific payment plan terms. Assessments are the lifeblood of HOA operations, so debt collection is unavoidable. Federal and state law provide significant protections to debtors, which creates significant legal exposure to associations and their collections agencies.
Dubac v. Itkoff
Here, homeowners Dubac and Itkoff lived in the same six-unit condominium building and were engaged in a lengthy back-and-forth email
exchange which included deeply insulting and accusatory remarks. These emails, which often copied board members, homeowners and residents and outside third parties, such as land use and insurance consultants, included personal accusations of racism, misogyny and criminal behavior. Dubac sued Itkoff for defamation, infliction of emotional distress, interference with economic advantage and civil harassment, due to the serious nature of the accusations.
Itkoff filed an anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) motion in response. The purpose of anti-SLAPP laws is to give defendants a quick, cost-effective avenue to dismiss meritless lawsuits which are intended only to censor or intimidate them for exercising First Amendment rights, i.e., exercising their right of public participation. Anti-SLAPP protects or encourages public participation and the First Amendment right to comment on “public issues,” by closing the door on liability associated with same.
Here, the court cited five factors which generally make a statement of “public interest”: (1) The statement concerns a person or entity in the public eye; (2) the statement concerns conduct that could directly affect a large number of people beyond the direct participants; (3) the statement concerns a topic of widespread public interest; (4) the issue is of concern to a substantial number of people; or (5) the issue has been the subject of extensive media coverage.
The Dubac and Itkoff emails were of a personal nature and did not involve discussion of a public issue, according to the court (personal accusations of racial animus, self-dealing and/ or misogyny). Additionally, these emails were not disseminated to the general public. Even though on one instance, the insurance representative was copied, and on another, the land use consultant, ultimately, they were shared with a small audience (the small, six-unit HOA members and building manager). Accordingly, the case was allowed to move forward.
This case highlights the complex nature of defamation, First Amendment and anti-SLAPP cases. Each case will require intricate analysis as to whether the facts warrant a dismissal under the anti-SLAPP statute.
For example, in Damon v. Ocean Hills Journalism Club (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 468, former general
manager of a 1,633-home senior community sued several board members for defamation, for publishing critical statements about his competency and performance in the Association’s “Village Voice” newsletter. When defendants moved to strike the lawsuit under California anti-SLAPP law, they prevailed. In Damon, the court argued that the statements in the Village Voice were related to a public issue given management affected over 1,600 homes and even more residents in the community. In other words, the case was dismissed, protecting the board members’ right of Free Speech, on a matter of public concern.
Perhaps more importantly, this and the Dubac case show that there can be no winner in defamation cases stemming from personal homeowner disputes. To this end, board members and managers, in particular, should exercise the utmost caution in what they communicate with the membership about specific homeowners. These seemingly benign communications can result in costly litigation.
Conclusion
Although unpublished cases are not “binding law”, they can suggest trends or patterns in the nature of HOA disputes and in some cases, point to the direction that courts will lean on particular issues. However, they may not demand immediate action and may even be just a one-off. By staying informed of these decisions, associations can ensure compliance while minimizing liability exposure.
With eight years in the industry, A.J. Jahanian, Esq. is an attorney at Beaumont Tashjian and a part of the HOA legal counsel.
By Daniel C. Heaton, Esq. and Youstina N. Aziz, Esq.
SB428
WORKPLACE RESTRAINING ORDERS
, PART II1
Elevating Community Protection and Fighting the Tides of Harassment
On September 30, 2023, Governor Newsom signed SB428, which took effect at the start of this year and amended Code of Civil Procedure §527.8 to broaden the grounds upon which an employer can seek a restraining order on behalf of an employee.
§527.8(a) previously indicated: “Any employer, whose employee has suffered unlawful violence or a credible threat of violence from any individual, that can reasonably be construed to be carried out or to have been carried out in the workplace, may seek a temporary restraining order and an order after hearing on behalf of the employee….”
As of January 1, 2025, §527.8(a) now reads: “Any employer … of an employee who has suffered harassment, unlawful violence, or a credible threat of violence from any individual….” (Emphasis added.)
The amendments also incorporate the same definition of “harassment,” requiring “a knowing and willful course of conduct directed at a specific a person that seriously alarms, annoys or harasses the person, and serves no legitimate purpose.” (CCP 527.8(b)(4).) The incident must “cause a reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress, and must actually cause substantial emotional distress.” (Id.)
What type of ongoing activities can be used to show harassing conduct? §527.8(b) (1) provides direct examples, such as:
• Following or stalking an employee to or from the place of work;
• Entering the workplace;
• Making telephone calls to an employee; and
• Sending correspondence by any means, including, mail or email.
These additions significantly expand the situations where boards are able to authorize the association’s legal counsel to pursue protective restraining orders.
For example, previously, if a community manager in a condominium project was receiving daily (sometimes hourly) emails and telephone calls from an unruly owner or tenant, the primary recourse would be attempting to work with the actual owner of the unit to try to resolve the matter. Even if the owner, or tenant’s communications became abusive, demeaning or even derogatory, the association could not seek a restraining order unless the emails crossed the line into threats of violence that caused the manager to fear for their safety reasonably. [2] Now, the threshold is much lower. Associations do not need to wait until there is violence. However, they can address harassing conduct directly to
protect their community managers, board members and other on-site independent contractors. (527.8(b)(3),(d).)
LESSONS FROM PRIOR BAD ACTORS
While it is too early for any published court decisions directly involving the new amendments to § 527.8 because that language was taken directly from §527.6, recent cases applying that provision provide valuable insight into what qualifies as “harassment” and when the imposition of a restraining order may be justified.
WENDY M. V. ABERNATHY (CAL. CT.APP. OCT. 3, 2024) 2024 WL 4380414 (UNPUBLISHED).
Wendy M. managed a community association where Abernathy leased one of the units. Abernathy called and sent “many emails” to complain about the association for approximately five months. The situation escalated to the point where Abernathy showed up at Wendy’s residence unannounced and uninvited and also sent “unknown individuals to [her] house.” Wendy called the police and eventually sold her house “due to [her] fear for safety from [Abernathy’s] constant refusal to stop communicating with [her].” The court imposed a three year Civil Harassment Restraining Order under §527.6 to protect Wendy and her husband.
MANRODT V. ALBELO CAL.CT.APP. JULY 17, 2023) 2023 WL 4557605 (UNPUBLISHED).
Manrodt was a new homeowner who sought a civil harassment restraining order on behalf of herself, her husband and her daughter to protect against the conduct of her neighbor Albelo, who the court described as having “apparently appointed himself as the guardian of all the rules and regulations in the project.” (Id., *2.)
Albelo essentially admitted to engaging in conduct that Manrodt described as “an escalating pattern of photographing and video recording her family.” (Id. *1.)
This included following, photographing and video recording them around the neighborhood, through the glass window of her front door, over her backyard fence and right next to her husband’s vehicle. Albelo’s defense was that he claimed the Manrodts had violated HOA rules in the past, and wanted to make sure he could document any future violations.
Notably, the definition of “harassment” includes a built-in requirement that the conduct “serves no legitimate purpose.” (527.8(b)(4).) This limitation ensures that courts do not grant a restraining order if it infringes upon other constitutional[3] or labor rights. In this case, the Court explained that while it may be appropriate to document ongoing violations, Albelo’s conduct had instead become a tool of harassment or other potentially illegal activity and, therefore, had no legitimate purpose.[4]
N. COAST VILL. CONDO. ASS’N V. PHILLIPS (2023)
94 CAL.APP.5TH 866.
The association initially brought the case as a Workplace Violence Restraining Order under the earlier version of §527.8. However, upon hearing most of the presented evidence, the trial court converted it to a Civil Harassment Restraining Order issued in favor of the board president.
The Court of Appeals, in its decision, recounts multiple incidents by an ex-board member involving various employees, management and vendors, including unsupported statements of financial misconduct by management, constant use of vulgarities and profanities, instances of physical assault and racial slurs.
The described conduct by Phillips against the board president is even more egregious. However, more noteworthy is the Court’s analysis of when certain activities involving a volunteer but fulltime resident board member should qualify under §527.7 as occurring “in the workplace.” The Court discussed the changing trends in the workforce and noted commonplace occurrences in most community associations:
“In a day and age when a large portion of the workforce works from home, the line between the workplace and home has become increasingly blurred…. Now that many employees can work from anywhere and even on their phones, employees may alternate between handling personal and work matters throughout the day and night and follow a less defined work
[1] The present article is meant as a companion piece to Bridging the Gap: SB428 Expands Available Protections in the ‘HOA Workplace’ published in the Spring 2024 Issue of CACM’s Law Journal. That article discussed how associations have been limited in their ability to protect their boards, community managers, and vendors because Workplace Restraining Orders under Code of Civil Procedure § 527.8 originally required a showing of “unlawful violence or a credible threat of violence.” This meant that associations were limited in their ability to step in to address situations where an errant homeowner or other third party was continually harassing association representatives; they were instead required to file their own individual Civil Harassment Restraining Orders under CCP § 527.6. The California Legislature adopted SB428 to fill this gap starting January 1, 2025, by amending Section 527.8 to add “harassment” to the types of wrongful conduct that justify a Workplace Restraining Order, thereby providing associations a more expansive tool to protect those that serve our communities.
[2] See Tech. Credit Union v. Rafat (2022) 82 Cal.App.5th 314, 323-24 (“indisputably rude, impatient, aggressive, and derogatory” conduct insufficient to show “credible threat of violence”).
[3] However, in California, courts have also recognized that “speech that constitutes ‘harassment’ within the meaning of section 527.6 is not constitutionally protected, and the victim of the harassment may obtain injunctive relief.” (Huntingdon Life Sciences, Inc. v. Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty USA, Inc. (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 1228, 1250; E.G. v. M.L. (2024) 2024 WL 4381045.)
[4] (Id. *6 (“Photography and video recording generally fall within the parameters of protected activity, but using photographing and video recording as tools of harassment, or other illegal activities, does not.”).)
schedule than in the past. As a result, the distinction between when someone is and is not functioning as an employee may not always be abundantly clear.” (Id. at 889.)
The Court rejected a limited interpretation of “in the workplace” imposed by the trial court based on whether the offender was standing in a common area or a separate interest while engaging in harassing conduct and instead concluded that “the plain language of the statute appears to encompass Phillips’ stalking or threatening of [the board president] at his home and at all hours because his home was also his workplace, and he did not have a set work schedule.” (Id. at 888-89.)
ELEVATING PROTECTIONS IN YOUR COMMUNITY
The changes that just took place as a result of the adoption of SB428 provide a much-needed expansion to the available tools that associations can use to protect those who serve their communities. Now that 2025 has arrived, boards and community managers should consult with legal counsel about additional options that may be available to fight against the increasing tides of harassment.
Daniel C. Heaton, Esq. and Youstina N. Aziz, Esq. are Senior Attorneys at DeNichilo Law, APC, serving as corporate and litigation counsel for community associations throughout California.
2024-2025 LEGAL DIRECTORY
ASSESSMENT COLLECTION SERVICES
ALLIED TRUSTEE SERVICES
Assessment Collections
Stefan Murphy Serving All of California 1601 Response Rd., Ste. 390 Sacramento, CA 95815 (800) 220-5454
smurphy@alliedtrustee.com www.alliedtrustee.com
ALTERRA ASSESSMENT RECOVERY
Assessment Collection Services
Steven J. Tinnelly Esq., President Advanced, Efficient, Effective HOA Assessment Recovery 27101 Puerta Real, Ste. 250 Mission Viejo, CA 92691 (888) 818-5949
ramona@tinnellylaw.com www.alterracollections.com
AXELA TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
Community Associations Collections
Welcome to the Future of Collections 7215 NE 4th Ave., Unit 101 Miami, FL 33138 (800) 875-9221
luis@axela-tech.com www.axela.com
COMMUNITY LEGAL ADVISORS, INC.
General Counsel & Assessment Collections
Mark Guithues, Esq., Laurie Masotto, Esq., Jeffrey Speights, Esq., Jay J. Brown, Esq.
Inland Empire, Orange County, San Diego County 509 N. Coast Highway Oceanside, CA 92054 (760) 529-5211 • Fax (760) 453-2194 mark@attorneyforhoa.com www.attorneyforhoa.com
FELDSOTT, LEE & NICHTER, ATTORNEYS AT LAW
General Counsel, Community Association Law
Stanley Feldsott, Martin Lee, and Austin Nichter
Laguna Hills, California 23161 Mill Creek Dr., Ste. 300 Laguna Hills, CA 92653 (949) 729-8002 • Fax (949) 729-8012 feldsott@gmail.com www.cahoalaw.com
UNITED TRUSTEE SERVICES
Trusted Partners In Assessment Collections
Lisa E. Chapman
HOA Assessment Collection Services 696 San Ramon Valley Blvd., Ste. 353 Danville, CA 94526 (925) 855-8554 • Fax (925) 855-8559 lisa@unitedtrusteeservices.com www.unitedtrusteeservices.com
ATTORNEYS
BERDING | WEIL
Construction Defect Litigation, General Counsel Services
Steven Weil, Tyler Berding, Chad Thomas, Daniel Rottinghaus, Andrew Baugh, Paul Windust
Walnut Creek, San Diego, Orange County, Sacramento 2175 North California Blvd., Ste. 500 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 (800) 838-2090 • Fax (925) 820-5592 jjackson@berdingweil.com www.berding-weil.com
CHAPMAN & INTRIERI, LLP
Construction Defect Litigation
John W. Chapman, Esq. Alameda, Roseville, San Diego, Orange County 2236 Mariner Square Dr., Ste. 300 Alameda, CA 94501 (510) 864-3600 • (510) 864-3601 spencer@cnilawfirm.com www.cnilawfirm.com
COMMUNITY LEGAL ADVISORS, INC.
General Counsel & Assessment Collections
Mark Guithues, Esq., Laurie Masotto, Esq., Jeffrey Speights, Esq., Jay J. Brown, Esq. Inland Empire, Orange County, San Diego County 509 N. Coast Highway Oceanside, CA 92054 (760) 529-5211 • Fax (760) 453-2194 mark@attorneyforhoa.com www.attorneyforhoa.com
DELPHI LAW GROUP, LLP
Community Association Law
Christina Baine DeJardin, James McCormick, Jr., Kyle Lakin, Zachary Smith Carlsbad, Indian Wells 5868 Owens Ave., Ste. 200 Carlsbad, CA 92008 (844) 433-5744 • Fax (760) 820-2696 info@delphillp.com www.www.delphillp.com
EPSTEN, APC
Association Counsel, Civil Litigation, Construction Defect Litigation Commercial CID Counsel, Senior Housing & Assessment Recovery
Jon Epsten, Esq. & Susan Hawks McClintic, Esq. San Diego | Coachella Valley | Inland Empire 3111 Camino del Rio North, Ste. 560 San Diego, CA 92108 (858) 527-0111 • Fax (858) 527-1531 info@epsten.com www.epsten.com
FIORE RACOBS & POWERS, A PLC
Community Association Law and Assessment Collections
Jacqueline D. Foster, Esq.
Peter E. Racobs, Esq.
John R. MacDowell, Esq. The Recognized Authority in Community Association Law
Orange County | Inland Empire | Coachella Valley l San Diego County (877) 31-FIORE • Fax (949) 727-3311 dweissberg@fiorelaw.com www.fiorelaw.com
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
HICKEY & ASSOCIATES, P.C. Community Association Law
David E. Hickey, Esq. 27261 Las Ramblas, Ste. 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
John P. Gill, Esq. l Amy K. Tinetti, Esq. 1350 Treat Blvd., Ste. 550 Walnut Creek, CA 94597 (925) 926-1200 • Fax (925) 926-1202 atinetti@hughes-gill.com www.hughes-gill.com
THE JUDGE LAW FIRM
HOA Law
James Judge, Esq. Providing General Counsel & Collection Services Throughout CA for Over 20 Years 300 Spectrum Center Dr., Ste. 100 Irvine, CA 92618 (949) 833-8633 • Fax (949) 833-0154 info@thejudgefirm.com www.thejudgefirm.com
Continued from page 19
LOEWENTHAL, HILLSHAFER & CARTER, LLP
Community Association Law I Construction Defect Litigation
David A. Loewenthal I Robert P. Hillshafer
Los Angeles, Ventura & Surrounding Counties 5700 Canoga Ave., Ste. 160 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 (866) 474-5529 • Fax (818) 905-6372 info@lhclawyers.net www.lhclawyers.net
THE NAUMANN LAW FIRM, PC
Attorney and Construction Defect Analysis
William H. Naumann I Elaine Gower Over 40 Years of Excellence 10890 Thornmint Rd. San Diego, CA 92127 (844) 492-7474 elaine@naumannlegal.com www.naumannlegal.com
PRATT & ASSOCIATES, APC
Community Association Law
Sharon Glenn Pratt Los Gatos, CA 634 North Santa Cruz Ave., Ste. 204 Los Gatos, CA 95030 (408) 369-0800 • Fax (408) 369-0752 spratt@prattattorneys.com www.prattattorneys.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 (415) 453-9433 • Fax (415) 453-8269 dfeingold@rflawllp.com www.rflawllp.com
RICHARDSON | OBER LLP
Community Association Law, Assessment Collection
Kelly G. Richardson | Matt D. Ober Throughout California (877) 446-2529 info@roattorneys.com www.roattorneys.com
SWEDELSONGOTTLIEB
Community Association Law Construction Defect Assessment Collection
David C. Swedelson, Esq., Sandra L. Gottlieb, Esq., Cyrus Koochek, Esq.
Los Angeles | Orange County | Palm Desert | San Francisco l Ventura 11900 W. Olympic Blvd., Ste. 700 Los Angeles, CA 90064 (800) 372-2207 • Fax (310) 207-2115 slg@sghoalaw.com www.lawforhoas.com
TINNELLY LAW GROUP
Community Association Law
Steven J. Tinnelly, Managing Partner & Richard A. Tinnelly, Senior Partner Orange County | Los Angeles | San Diego | Coachella Valley | Northern CA 27101 Puerta Real, Ste. 250 Mission Viejo, CA 92691 (949) 588-0866 ramona@tinnellylaw.com www.tinnellylaw.com
WHITE LAW GROUP, INC.
Community Associations, Real Property Disputes
Steven M. White, Esq. 1530 The Alameda, Suite 215 San Jose, CA 95126 (408) 345-4000 • Fax (408) 345-4020 info@whitelginc.com whitelginc.com
WHITNEY PETCHUL APC
Community Association Attorneys
Fred T. Whitney, Esq. / Dirk E. Petchul, Esq. From Inception To Build-Out And Beyond 27 Orchard Rd. Lake Forest, CA 92630 (949) 766-4700 • Fax (949) 766-4712 dpetchul@whitneypetchul.com www.whitneypetchul.com
WOLF, RIFKIN, SHAPIRO, SCHULMAN & RABKIN, LLP
Community Association Law
Michael W. Rabkin, Esq. 11400 W. Olympic Blvd., 9th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90064 (310) 744-4100 • Fax (310) 479-1422 mrabkin@wrslawyers.com www.wrslawyers.com
CONSTRUCTION DEFECT ANALYSYS
BERDING | WEIL
Construction Defect Litigation, General Counsel Services
Steven Weil, Tyler Berding, Chad Thomas, Daniel Rottinghaus, Andrew Baugh, Paul Windust
Walnut Creek, San Diego, Orange County, Sacramento 2175 North California Blvd., Ste. 500, Walnut Creek, CA 94596 (800) 838-2090 • Fax (925) 820-5592
jjackson@berdingweil.com www.berding-weil.com
FENTON GRANT KANEDA & LITT, LLP
Construction Defect Litigation and CID Law
Charles R. Fenton, Esq. & Joseph Kaneda, Esq.
Servicing California and Nevada Communities for Over 25 Years 2030 Main Street, Ste. 550 Irvine, CA 92614 (949) 435-3800 • Fax (949) 435-3801 cfenton@fentongrant.com www.fentongrant.com
THE MILLER LAW FIRM
Construction Defect Analysis & Litigation
Thomas E. Miller, Esq.
Rachel M. Miller, Esq.
The Authority in California Construction Defect Claims for 40 Years 19 Corporate Plaza Dr. Newport Beach, CA, 92660 (800) 403-3332 • Fax (929) 442-0646
Construction Defect Resolutions & Construction Defect Analysis Attorneys
Rick Riley, Melissa Pasek, Kevin Canty
Representing Community Associations
Throughout the State of California 780 San Ramon Valley Blvd. Danville, CA 94526 (844) 775-5000 JWebster@RileyPasek.com www.rileypasek.com
ELECTION ADMINISTRATION
THE INSPECTORS OF ELECTION
Providing Superior Election Support for California HOA’s Since 2006
Kurtis Peterson
Completely Independent
Full-Service Election Provider 2794 Loker Ave. W., Ste 104 Carlsbad, CA 92010 (888) 211-5332 • Fax (888) 211-5332 kurtis@theinspectorsofelection.com www.theinspectorsofelection.com
LIBERTY HOA ELECTION SERVICES, LLC
Election Administration
Deanna M. Libert
We Make Association Voting Management Easy 1900 Camden Ave. San Jose, CA 95124 (408) 482-9659 deanna@hoaelection.com www.hoaelection.com
RESERVE STUDY FIRMS
ASSOCIATION RESERVES
Reserve Studies
Paige Schauermann
Rely on the Experts to Budget Responsibly with a Reserve Study 2945 Townsgate Rd., Ste. 200 Westlake Village, CA 91361 (800) 733-1365 pschauermann@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
