Showing posts with label Davis-Stirling.com. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Davis-Stirling.com. Show all posts

Sunday, September 12, 2010

From Our Friends at Davis-Stirling-Moral Obligations

MORAL OBLIGATION
QUESTION: I’m President of a large condo association. The board found that bills were not paid to some vendors almost 10 years ago and the vendors have written the amounts off as bad debt. However, some board members want to go back and pay those old debts. We have had a large turnover in owners. Is it fair to ask those new owners to pay for this old debt?
ANSWER: Whether legally obligated or not, the association is morally obligated to pay the debt. To not pay for benefits received when the association has the ability to do so is in effect a theft of goods and services from those vendors.



Copyright
ADAMS KESSLER

Reprinted from
Davis-Stirling.com by Adams Kessler PLC

Sunday, June 20, 2010

From Davis Stirling.com-Growing Pot On Balconies/Patios

Reprinted from
Davis-Stirling.com by Adams Kessler PLC

SMOKING POT
QUESTION: We have a resident who is smoking "pot" and growing marijuana on his patio (2 large plants) in full view of residents. He says he has a permit to do so. Is this allowed?
ANSWER: When faced with a similar situation, one of my condo boards approved, provided the resident shared his stash. Other boards, however, may wish to prohibit the growing and smoking of pot on balconies.
Federal Law. The Controlled Substances Act makes it unlawful to manufacture, distribute, dispense, or possess any controlled substance. 21 U.S.C. 801. The federal government does not recognize any acceptable medical use for marijuana. 21 U.S.C. 812(b)(1). California, on the other hand, legalized marijuana for medical purposes.
Medical Marijuana. Medical marijuana is authorized by Health & Safety Code 11362.5 et. seq. for the treatment of serious medical conditions, and is administered by California's Department of Public Health. Upon obtaining a recommendation from their physician for use of medicinal marijuana, patients may apply for and be issued a medical marijuana identification card. ID cards may be verified at www.calmmp.ca.gov. With one exception, qualified patients may possess no more than eight ounces of dried marijuana. H&S Code 11362.77(a).
Restrictions. Just because someone has a permit to use medical marijuana does not mean he can light up whenever and wherever he wants. For example, users cannot smoke a joint in a courtroom or inside any governmental buildings (Gov. Code 7597), or within 20 feet of a main exit, entrance, or operable window of any public buildings (Gov. Code 7597), or in any workplace (Labor Code 6404.5), or on school grounds, or while operating a vehicle (H&S 11362.79). Reasonable restrictions may be imposed on the use of medical marijuana.
Quiet Enjoyment. Based on the nuisance provisions in CC&Rs, secondhand smoke, whether cigarette, cigar, marijuana or otherwise, that drifts into the windows of other units, balconies, or common areas can be restricted. Members have a right to the quiet enjoyment of their own units and should not have to endure the problems associated with secondhand smoke wafting into their units. If associations prohibit smoking on balconies, it should be all smoking, not just marijuana. Otherwise, the restriction may be struck down as discriminatory.
Reasonable Accommodation. An association's power to prohibit medical marijuana inside units is less clear. Health & Safety Code 11362.79 implies that smoking medical marijuana in one's residence is allowed. As a result, boards should not prohibit pot smoking in units but, instead, should address the nuisance aspects. As long as the smoke does not create a nuisance and provided the person has been authorized to use medical marijuana, smoking it in a unit should be allowed.
Inside Units - Nuisance. If the user cannot confine the smoke to his own unit, the smoke becomes a nuisance that must be abated. The smoker can be required to take appropriate measures to cease his violation of the CC&Rs. The person may need to run HEPA filters inside his unit, seal all penetrations in walls, ceilings and floors, and install weather stripping and door sweeps on doors to stop smoke from migrating into the common areas and surrounding units.
Growing Pot. Qualified persons are allowed to cultivate marijuana (H&S 11362.775) but may not keep more than six mature or 12 immature plants (H&S 11362.77(a)). Just as smoking marijuana has limitations, growing it can be regulated. Boards could require that plants be grown in the person's unit and not on balconies.
RECOMMENDATION: Boards who encounter this issue should seek legal counsel.

Sunday, June 13, 2010

From DavisStirling.com-Can the BOD ban planters on exclusive use decks?

FROM OUR FRIENDS AT DAVIS-STIRLING.COM

PLANTERS ON BALCONIES
QUESTION: Can the board prohibit planters on exclusive use decks, to protect them from damage from leaks and weight? Can the board adopt rules rather than change the CC&Rs?
ANSWER: Yes, boards can adopt reasonable rules to protect decks from damage, including limits on the size and number of potted plants and prohibitions against planters. Even though condominium balconies are for the exclusive use of the unit to which they are attached, they are still common area structures. Boards can regulate balconies without amending the CC&Rs, provided the rules adopted do not contradict the CC&Rs. Balconies on homes in PUDs would be subject to less regulation since they are not common area structures.
                                  Reprinted from
Davis-Stirling.com 
by Adams Kessler PLC

FOR MORE INFORMATION  ON DECK COATINGS, DECKS AND HOA ISSUES WITH DECKS, VISIT US AT www.deckexpert.com today!

Sunday, May 30, 2010

From Davis Stirling's Sunday Q &A SMOKING ON THE BALCONY A CIVIL RIGHT?

QUESTION: Can the association make it a violation to smoke on your own balcony? Wouldn't that violate your civil rights?
ANSWER: Yes, associations can pass rules...READ THE ANSWER BY CLICKING HERE

Reprinted from
Davis-Stirling.com by Adams Kessler PLC

Sunday, April 11, 2010

From our Friends at Davis Stirling.com-POTTED PLANTS ON BALCONIES

POTTED PLANTS ON BALCONIES
QUESTION: One of the homeowners put huge potted plants on his balcony. If water eventually weakens the balcony, who is responsible for repairing it?
ANSWER: It depends.
Balcony Structure. The structure is almost always the responsibility of the association to maintain. The only exception I've seen is when the balcony is added to the building by the unit owner (with the association's permission). When that happens, we require the owner to sign a recordable covenant that makes him/her responsible for the repair and maintenance of the balcony structure.
Balcony Surface. When it comes to the balcony surface, your governing documents control (assuming they address the issue). If the association is responsible for waterproofing the surface, then the board should make sure it keeps everything waterproofed. More often than not, governing documents are unclear or silent on the issue of deck maintenance. In that case, the Davis-Stirling Act resolves the ambiguity by stating that "Unless otherwise provided in the [CC&Rs] . . . the owner of each separate interest is responsible for maintaining . . . any exclusive use common area appurtenant to the separate interest." Civil Code 1364(a). That means owners are responsible for maintaining their balcony's waterproofing surface (which is the norm for most associations).
Negligent Maintenance. If an owner tiles the balcony deck or fails to properly maintain the waterproofing and this leads to damage of the balcony's structure, the association could hold the owner responsible for the damage. Normally, there are provisions in the CC&Rs that allow associations to charge an owner for the cost of repairing damage caused by their negligence. If the CC&Rs are silent, the Davis-Stirling Act allows boards to impose reimbursement special assessments in the form of a monetary charge and to collect it through lien and foreclosure (provided the authority to impose a lien is in the governing documents). Civil Code 1367.1(d).


Reprinted from
Davis-Stirling.com by Adams Kessler PLC

Monday, February 8, 2010

Deck Expert Mentioned In/Contributes to Discussion on Satellite Dish Issues at Davis-Stirling.com

A couple weeks ago, Davis-Stirling.com's weekly newsletter (subscribe by clicking here) had a question from a reader about satellite dishes being installed on common area elements of an HOA;

SATELLITE DISHES ON
COMMON AREA ROOFS
QUESTION: Civil Code 1376(b)(2) says in part: "...that has a diameter or diagonal measurements of 36 inches or less on a separate interest owned by another." Questions and confusion keep arising on the interpretation of the phrase in bold lettering. We have some condominiums whose balconies cannot receive a satellite signal. The owners of these units want to place dishes on the common area roof. They claim the wording of 1376 allows them to do this as the roof is "a separate interest owned by another." Are they correct?
ANSWER: No, they are not correct. The term “separate interest owned by another” refers to the portion of the project owned exclusively by another member of the association which, in the case of condominium projects, is air space.Civil Code 1351(l)(2)&(f). The portions of the project owned by the association are referred to as “common area.”Civil Code 1351(b). Therefore, Civil Code §1376(b)(2) would not give residents the right to install a satellite dish on a common area roof.

Federal Preemption. Moreover, parts of Civil Code §1376 have been preempted by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (47 USC § §151-615b) and Over-the-Air Reception Devices Rule (OTARD rule) (47 CFR §1.4000), which provides that while owners have a right install satellite dishes on their separate interest or exclusive use common areas (i.e. balconies, patios), they do not have a right to install them on common area roofs.
Roof Damage. Finally, due to possible damage to roofs and potential liability from injuries, most associations do not allow the installation of antennas on common area roofs. A small percentage of our clients allow installation in designated roof areas that have been prepped for antennas so as to avoid damage. Even so, some impose strict restrictions on when and how installations occur, and some require signed releases from owners. NOTE: Such restrictions do not apply to single family homes and do not necessarily apply to townhomes.
Reprinted from
Davis-Stirling.com by Adams Kessler PLC


I sent them a few photo's of botched sat dish installation jobs and made a few comments on the subject, which have been printed in the last newsletter from 2/7/2010. You can read my comments by clicking the link below. Davis-Stirling.com
.
 Condo managers, self managed HOA's, and anyone interested in California condo law would do well to buy the 2010 Bluebook for California condo law. Buy it today from Amazon.com by clicking on the link below.
 2010 Condominium Bluebook for California

Sunday, October 18, 2009

From my friends at Davis-Stirling.com

I get the Davis-Stirling.com weekly newsletter; you should too...here's fair warning to any HOA's that want to use unlicensed contractors...it might seem cheaper at first, but in the end, it only costs. Central Coast Waterproofing is fully licensed and insured; we can name you as additional insureds, covering your HOA. Call Bill Leys for a free quote on your next decking job. 805-801-2380

Reprinted from
Davis-Stirling.com by Adams Kessler PLC

MORE LIABILITY FOR HIRING
UNLICENSED CONTRACTORS

A recent decision by the California Court of Appeal reinforces the importance of avoiding unlicensed contractors. If associations hire unlicensed contractors, they could be liable for wage and hour claims filed by employees of the contractor. Although the case involved a general contractor and its subcontractors, associations who hire unlicensed contractors can be deemed a "general contractor" and the unlicensed contractors as "subcontractors." This means that any unpaid workers will be considered employees of the association and the association will be liable for paying those workers, even it the association already paid the contractor. Sanders Construction v. Cerda (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 430.

RECOMMENDATIONS. Homeowner association boards should verify each contractor's license with the Contractors State License Board. In addition it should get proof of insurance. Boards should also add a provision to their contracts requiring contractors to indemnify the association for any wage and hour claims by its employees.