I recently submitted a guest post on the CAI California Legislative Action Committee (CLAC) blog regarding SB 745, the “clean up legislation for the revised Davis-Stirling Act, which goes into law on January 1, 2014. You can read the post and my analysis of how SB 745 addresses several omissions from the revised Davis-Stirling Act here.
If you would like additional information on the revised Davis-Stirling Act, and what changes will take effect in the new year, please read my post “A Guide to the Revised Davis-Stirling Act (AB 805)“
One of the questions that we are often asked is “What is required to amend the CC&Rs?” Civil Code section 1355 (Civil Code section 4270 starting in 2014) provides that an amendment to CC&Rs is effective after all of the following requirements have been met . . .
One of the questions that we are often asked is “What is required to amend the CC&Rs?” Civil Code section 1355 (Civil Code section 4270 starting in 2014) provides that an amendment to CC&Rs is effective after all of the following requirements have been met:
- The requisite approval of the percentage of owners as required by the governing documents has been obtained,
- Written certification of the approval by an officer of the association, and
- Recordation of the amendment
While the specific approval required must be determined by looking at the specific set of CC&Rs, most such documents require the approval of a super-majority of owners, typically 67% of the total voting power. If the CC&Rs are silent on the required percentage of owner approval necessary to amend the CC&Rs, then Civil Code section 1355 provides that an amendment may be approved by a majority of all members.
If there are multiple classes of membership, it is not uncommon for the CC&Rs to require the approval of a super-majority of each class of members to also be required. In addition, certain types of amendments may require the approval of first mortgagees (the banks who hold the mortgages on the various units or residences in the association), or even the city. The types of amendments which require the approval of the first mortgagees are spelled out in the CC&Rs, and typically are limited to amendments which could adversely impact the security interest of the mortgagee, such as amendments changing the manner in which assessments are imposed or allocated among the various owners.
How Do We Vote?
Once the required approval percentage is determined, the Davis-Stirling Act requires that voting on the proposed amendment must be done by the double envelope secret ballot process set forth in Civil Code section 1363.03(b) (Civil Code section 5115 starting in 2014), with the votes counted at an open meeting so that the vote counting can be observed by the members. The ballot must contain the proposed amendment to be voted on by the members.
Continue reading “What Does it Take to Amend the CC&Rs?”
There will no doubt be some adjustment period to the new revised Davis-Stirling Act. However, the reality that the revision to the Davis-Stirling Act was really simply rewritten rather than changed in any significant way. This should provide comfort to managers and board members anticipating the new law and its implementation coming in January 2014.
I recently spoke to the Inland Empire Chapter of CAI regarding the upcoming changes to California’s Common Interest Development Act, or the Davis-Stirling Act, which takes effect on January 1, 2014. In preparation for that presentation, it became clear that despite the numerous resources available regarding the revised Act, many people are still concerned and wonder how the new law will impact their community association. The good news is that there is no reason to panic. The revisions to the Davis-Stirling Act were designed to be non-controversial. As a result, the substantive changes to the law are relative few in number and small in impact. In addition, there are some advantages to revising the Davis-Stirling Act. The current version of the Act has several “issues.” Sections which are logically related to each other are not located near each other in the Act making locating all the relevant sections difficult and confusing. Also, several sections are excessively long and complicated making them hard to read. The revisions to the Act make several changes which address the current version’s short comings. These include changes which group related provisions in a more logical order, long sections are divided into shorter, easier to read sections, more consistent terminology is used throughout the Act, and governance procedures are standardized. That does not mean there aren’t some disadvantages, however. The most significant of which is that those of us who deal with the Davis-Stirling Act will have to learn all over again what code sections contain various provisions due to the complete renumbering of the Act.
While a board may want to consider amending the governing documents, there is no legal requirement to do so. However, the new law (Civil Code section 4235) allows a board to amend the governing documents to update references to various sections of the Davis-Stirling Act by a board vote, allowing boards to avoid a member vote to amend the CC&Rs in this limited circumstance.
The following highlights the changes to the Act which we find to be the most significant. There are some additional changes which are not addressed in this article because few will ever come across them (such as the change in who can sign an amendment to a condo plan), but the changes you are most likely to encounter are covered.
- Notice and Delivery – One of the most significant changes in the Davis-Stirling Act is how an association can give “notice” to its members. New Civil Code section 4045 allows for “general notice” to be given by (1) first class mail; (2) email, facsimile, or other electronic means upon receipt of written consent to receive notice in that fashion; (3) inclusion in a billing statement, newsletter or other document Continue reading “A Guide to the Revised Davis-Stirling Act (AB 805)”
One of the most difficult choices a board makes when preparing an association’s annual budget is whether to increase assessments to fund the association’s reserve account, or to keep assessments low and delay funding the reserve account until a later day, if at all. The reasons boards may under fund reserves are varied. It may be as innocent as the reality that association is having difficulty collecting assessments and all the money collected is necessary to meet operating expenses, or it may be a misguided desire by the board to artificially keep assessments low in fear that the members will not support an increase in order to fund the reserve accounts. After all, it can be a so easy to make the choice to keep assessments low. Raising assessments, even if it is necessary to fund reserve accounts, is rarely a popular decision. It is much easier to put off funding the reserve account, keep assessments low and keep the members happy, at least in the short term. However, failing to properly fund reserves is rarely, if ever, a good decision for the board to make. While some boards rely on what is a technically accurate statement that associations in California are not legally required to fund reserve accounts that is a dangerous and often short sided understanding of reserve accounts, and their importance to the financial health of the association. Whatever the cause, failing to fund reserve accounts pursuant to a plan developed in conjunction with the reserve study can place the association’s financial health at risk. So much so, that the California Department of Real Estate recently took the extraordinary step of issuing a consumer warning for underfunded homeowners associations.
Failing to properly fund reserve accounts results in a significantly increased likelihood of large special assessments, possibly in the thousands or tens of thousands of dollars to pay for necessary repairs. In addition, underfunded reserves can lead to lower property values within the association as buyers become wary of properties which are likely to be subject to large special assessments. Lastly, failing to properly fund reserves may make the properties in the community ineligible for federal loans issued by Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, reducing the market of potential buyers, further reducing property values.
While the DRE consumer warning is not the only reason that boards should take steps to ensure they are properly funding reserve accounts, it highlights the importance of doing so. The risks in failing to fund reserves are too great to be ignored. Boards should heed the DRE warning and use their best efforts to start properly funding that reserve account piggy bank.
AB 2273 was signed into law by Governor Jerry Brown. The bill requires foreclosing parties to record a sale within 30 days of the sale. This will benefit associations since it now requires public notice as to who owns the property, and where they may be contacted so that associations can properly invoice all owners for assessments.
AB 2273 has been signed into law by Governor Jerry Brown. The bill requires foreclosing parties to record a sale within 30 days of the sale. This will benefit associations since it now requires public notice as to who owns the property, and where they may be contacted so that associations can properly invoice all owners for assessments.
In addition, AB 2273 shortens the time for foreclosing parties to notify associations that they are the new owners. However, in order to take advantage of this aspect of the new law, associations will have to have recorded a “Request for Notification” prior to the property receiving a notice of default. Where an association has recorded a “Request for Notification,” the foreclosing party must notify the association within 15 days after the date of sale.
All California community associations should contact their legal counsel to make sure that a proper “Request for Notification” has been recorded so that the association can receive the benefits that the new law provides. This will greatly help to ensure that associations receive notice of foreclosure, and the identity of the new owner, as soon as possible so that assessments can be charged to the proper party.
Congratulations to CAI, who sponsored the bill, and worked hard to get it passed for the benefit of all California community associations!