Tag Archives: homeowners association

Davis-Stirling: Foreclosure Notice Requirements are Strictly Construed

Posted on by
Reply

  The Sixth Appellate District holds that the pre-foreclosure notice requirements of the Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act must be strictly construed to create a valid lien. Only valid liens may be recorded and subsequently foreclosed by the association. The case is Diamond v. Superior Court (Casa Del Valle Homeowners Association). The notice and procedural requirements can be found in Civil Code sections 1367.1 and 1367.4 and are summarized here.  Continue reading →

Related posts:

  1. Failure to Provide Notice of Redemption Rights May Void HOA’s Nonjudicial Foreclosure
  2. How to Count Days: California Courts
  3. Enforcement of Judgment: Attorney Fees as Costs, Privity Not Required
  4. Defense Under Reservation of Rights: The Right to Independent Cumis Counsel
  5. Memorandum of Costs: 5-Day Extension Applies When Party Serves Notice of Entry by Mail

Davis-Stirling: Only Members Have a Right to Attend Meetings

Posted on by
1

  The Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act, found at Civil Code sections 1350 et seq., governs common interest developments. Civil Code section 1363.05(b) provides that “[a]ny member of the association may attend meetings of the board of directors of the association . . . .”  Subdivision (h) of that section provides that “[t]he board of directors of the association shall permit any member of the association to speak at any meeting of the association or the board of directors, except for meetings of the board held in executive session.” Continue reading →

Related posts:

  1. Laches Bars Probate Petition; Filing, Not Service, Determines Timeliness of Petition
  2. Failure to Provide Notice of Redemption Rights May Void HOA’s Nonjudicial Foreclosure
  3. Enforcement of Judgment: Attorney Fees as Costs, Privity Not Required
  4. How to Count Days: California Courts
  5. Commmittee of Bar Examiners Argues for Law Licenses for the Undocumented in Opening Brief

Unpaid HOA Assessments: Your Rights Under Davis-Stirling

Posted on by
Reply

  Under the Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act the amount of any unpaid association assessment, plus the reasonable costs of collection, late charges, and interest, constitutes a debt of the owner. After complying with notice requirements an association may record a lien for delinquent assessments against the property of an owner. The lien may then be enforced through the nonjudicial foreclosure process applicable to powers of sale in mortgages and deeds of trust. Continue reading →

Related posts:

  1. Memorandum of Costs: 5-Day Extension Applies When Party Serves Notice of Entry by Mail
  2. How to Count Days: California Courts
  3. Laches Bars Probate Petition; Filing, Not Service, Determines Timeliness of Petition
  4. Enforcement of Judgment: Attorney Fees as Costs, Privity Not Required
  5. Defense Under Reservation of Rights: The Right to Independent Cumis Counsel

Binding Arbitration of Construction Dispute Between HOA and Developer Required by CC&Rs

Posted on by
Reply

  The California Supreme Court in Pinnacle Museum Tower Assn. v. Pinnacle Market Development reverses the Court of Appeal and holds that a clause in the recorded CC&Rs of a common interest development providing that the HOA and the individual owners agree to resolve any construction dispute with the developer through binding arbitration in accordance with the Federal Arbitration Act is binding on the HOA and is not unconscionable.

Related posts:

  1. Failure to Provide Notice of Redemption Rights May Void HOA’s Nonjudicial Foreclosure
  2. Served With a Lawsuit? Consult the FAQs
  3. Memorandum of Costs: 5-Day Extension Applies When Party Serves Notice of Entry by Mail
  4. Cumis Counsel: Not Required After Cumis-Triggering Event Withdrawn
  5. Laches Bars Probate Petition; Filing, Not Service, Determines Timeliness of Petition

Fee Award to HOA Reversed Though Plaintiff’s Action Frivolous

Posted on by
Reply

   There was an interesting twist in a case brought by a homeowner against his HOA last week. The homeowner brought a civil action, asserting violations of association rules and the relevant statutory scheme. The trial court granted a second demurrer without leave to amend and granted the HOA attorney’s fees of approximately $15,000 pursuant to Civil Code section 1636.09(b). The trial court specifically found that the homeowner’s causes of action under Civil Code section 1636.9 were frivolous because the homeowner knew when the action was filed they were barred by the one-year statute of limitations. The appellate court reluctantly reversed the fee award in That v. Alders Maintenance Assn. Continue reading →

Related posts:

  1. Wrongful Foreclosure: Ineffective Securitization? So What?
  2. Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act: No Private Right of Action
  3. Davis-Stirling: Foreclosure Notice Requirements are Strictly Construed
  4. Memorandum of Costs: 5-Day Extension Applies When Party Serves Notice of Entry by Mail
  5. Did Caterpillar’s Attorneys Commit Malpractice When They Served a 998 Offer?