Is a Homeowners Association Required to Accept Partial Payments?

500 × 446 – 

In Huntington Continental v. J.M. Trust (Cal. App. Sup. Ct.; January 13, 2014)(222 Cal. App. 4th Supp. 13.) the Appellate Division of the Orange County Superior Court held that the Davis-Stirling Act compels associations to accept partial payments from homeowners to reduce the amount of the homeowner’s unpaid assessments. Associations are concerned that this decision will allow homeowners to avoid foreclosure by keeping their delinquent account under the $1,800 Civil Code requirement. As collection counsel for associations, my question is this:  is this really such a bad decision for associations?

It has long been industry practice by associations or their management companies to reject partial payments from homeowners once the account has been turned over for collection to a collection agency or law firm. Some collection agencies or law firms also reject those partial payments.  A better practice is accept the partial payments and advise the homeowner that in doing so, the association is not waiving any of its legal rights or remedies in collecting the remainder of the debt.  The benefits: 1) collecting money for the association for the benefit of all owners; and 2) avoiding criticism from the court for not accepting partial payments from financially struggling owners.

On Feb. 24, 2014, the Court of Appeal ordered the case transferred for rehearing and decision.  While we await the Court’s decision, it is important to note that Huntington Continental is only binding in Orange County at this time. Therefore, it is still the board’s decision whether to accept partial payments in other counties. It makes sense to accept money owed and offered by a homeowner, when the association needs that money, as long as it can continue to pursue the remainder of the debt in an action for money damages. Associations interested in developing a policy for the acceptance of partial payments should consult with their association’s legal counsel.


Steven Roseman, Esq. is the founder and managing partner in the law firm of Roseman & Associates, APC. During the past nineteen (19) years, Mr. Roseman has represented homeowners associations and their boards. His representation includes legal guidance, enforcement and compliance with their governing documents, fiduciary duty responsibilities, updating governing documents, contract drafting and negotiation, loss prevention, and director and officer defense and representation. Mr. Roseman is a specialist in the field of Construction Defect litigation and is a well-seasoned trial lawyer with a number of jury trials to his name. He has obtained hundreds of millions of dollars in recoveries for clients in complex litigation, ranging from insurance bad faith, construction defect litigation, and enforcement of governing documents.

Mr. Roseman is an active member of the two most prominent trade groups – CAI and CACM. Mr. Roseman lectures extensively on behalf of these groups, including CAI’s ABC Essentials Course, and is on the faculty of CACM’s CCAM manager certification and High Rise manager certification. In addition, he serves on the Mediation Steering committee for CAI-GLAC, the Education committee for CAI-OC, the Legal Steering Committee for CACM Law Journal, and finally serves as a delegate for CAI’s California Legislative Action Committee (CLAC).

7 Tips for Handling HOA Architectural Approvals Fairly

One process that often gets owners piping mad is architectural approval. Here our experts offer seven tips for making your HOA’s architectural approval process transparent, fair, and as speedy as possible.

1. Educate home owners on the committee’s role. “Educate home owners on the reason for the architectural review committee,” says Steven Parker, president of RMI Management in Las Vegas, which manages 286 community associations. “You might say, ‘You bought in this community because you liked the way it looked, and it’s the ARC’s job to maintain those standards that appealed to you.’ I’ve seen associations where owners were mad at ARC decisions and considered them unfair, and that was because the board hadn’t adequately explained the reason for the ARC process to home owners in the first place. Where that’s done and owners’ requests are declined, they’re less likely to be angry.”

2. Create written standards. “The first thing you need is written criteria,” explains Robert Galvin, a partner at Davis, Malm & D’Agostine PC in Boston who specializes in representing condos and co–ops. “For example, if somebody wants to put in a dormer, what are the criteria for that so it’s not left completely up to the architectural review committee?

“You could promulgate specific criteria for specific renovations,” adds Galvin. “For example in the condo where I live, the windows are owned by the owners and aren’t common. The association has issued a list of windows you can use. You can buy them anyplace, but the windows you buy must meet these specifications. Then there are balcony criteria: This is what you can do to your balcony.

“Then there can be general criteria,” says Galvin. “You could state that alterations have to fit in with the existing architecture, so they must be art deco or American colonial style, whatever your style. Otherwise, there are no guidelines, and it would be very difficult for the committee to know what the criteria would be. That’ll make the process fair, and not only that, people will believe it’s fair.”

3. Take tons of decisions out of the committee’s hands. “Have as many decisions taken out of the subjective realm as possible,” advises Parker. “Rather than saying, ‘No, you can’t choose that paint color,’ create a list of paint colors that are acceptable and let owners choose from the list.”

4. Create a transparent system. “It should be an open process,” says Galvin. “There should be a hearing before the ARC members, and there’s no reason it can’t be public. There should be a written decision, and it should include the committee’s reasons for the decision. And the process should be speedy. It doesn’t have to be done in a few days, but an ARC review shouldn’t take months.”

5. Document your process. “Have a process that ensures that all requests should be on an application, and create a form application that owners must use so that people just don’t send a letter,” advises Brad van Rooyen, a partner at Home Encounter, a Tampa, Fla., company that manages 15 community associations totaling about 3,000 owners. “Also tell owners that if their application isn’t done correctly, it won’t be processed until it’s correct. Then you keep the process fair for everybody. Likewise, ensure that every step of the ARC review process is documented in writing by someone on the committee.”

6. Remind the committee of the stakes involved. “Whether the management company or the HOA’s attorney brings this up, we always remind our ARCs that disputes can end up in court or arbitration, and the committee might be asked to explain everything they’ve done,” explains van Rooyen. “Keeping that in the back of their minds hopefully keeps things moving along in a fair and consistent manner.”

7. Be open to change. “When ARCs are developing architectural guidelines, they need to be responsive to the needs of the community,” says van Rooyen. “A lot of things have changed, especially in older communities. Sometimes, 25 years have gone by since the creation of the guidelines. What was written when the community was founded isn’t likely to be applicable today.

“For example, some condos are extremely specific on the roofing material type, ” adds van Rooyen. “But there have been so many advancements in roofing types that there are probably better solutions that are longer lasting and more affordable than what’s specified in the governing documents. Also, my association has very specific guidelines governing the coach lights in front of our garages. But we can’t find the replacement lights, and we also can’t get a majority of our community to show up or send in proxies to change the governing documents on that issue.”

Why go through all this hassle to strengthen your ARC process? So you’re ready and your actions are defensible when owners challenge you—which is something you can count on.

“If you treat differently and upset one owner who’s retired and has a little time on his hands,” says van Rooyen, “with owners’ access to the Internet today and how quickly people can find out how to challenge things, it’s not if they’ll challenge you but when.”


Originally published October 2012 by

New 2014 Civil Code for Commercial CIDs

New and Improved Law to Govern Commercial

Common Interest Developments in California


  • As of January 1, 2014, commercial common interest developments (CIDs) in California are governed by the new Commercial and Industrial Common Interest Development Act.
  • The New Act establishes provisions specific to commercial CIDs, clarifying those legal requirements applicable to commercial CIDs. It also makes CID requirements less burdensome to commercial interests, separating them from consumer protection provisions aimed at homeowners.

Effective January 1, 2014, the establishment, governance and operations of commercial and industrial common interest developments (commercial CIDs) in California are governed by the new Commercial and Industrial Common Interest Development Act, added by SB 752 and signed into law on October 5, 2013 (the “New Act”). The New Act adds Sections 6500-6876 to the California Civil Code and makes conforming changes to other related statutes. Most important, it clarifies the law applicable to commercial CIDs and removes unnecessary burdens for commercial interests that were in place to protect residential homeowners.

Defining Commercial CIDs Under the New Act

Common interest developments include condominium projects, planned developments and stock cooperatives. They are typically characterized by the inclusion of both “separate interests” in property as well as “common area” owned by an owners’ association or by the owners in common that are made subject to covenants, conditions and restrictions set forth in a recorded declaration, commonly referred to as CC&Rs.

Under the New Act, commercial CIDs are defined to mean a common interest development that is limited to industrial or commercial uses by law or by recorded CC&Rs. Unless a contrary intent is clearly expressed, a local zoning ordinance is construed to treat like structures, lots, parcels, areas or spaces in like manner regardless of the form of the commercial CID. The New Act further provides that commercial uses include, but are not limited to, the operation of a business that provides facilities for the overnight stay of its customers, employees or agents. Commercial CIDs can range from small retail strips or office parks to large mixed-use projects containing retail, industrial and office developments.

An Improvement Over the Davis-Stirling Act

Prior to the New Act, both commercial CIDs and residential common interest developments were governed by the provisions of the Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act (amended and recodified, effective January 1, 2014, at California Civil Code sections 4000 et seq.). The inclusion of both types of common interest developments under the former version of the Davis-Stirling Act often proved confusing for property owners, associations and managers, and their counsel.

Several years after the Davis-Stirling Act was implemented, an additional provision was put in place to exempt commercial CIDs from certain aspects of the Davis-Stirling Act intended to protect homeowners. Over time, however, numerous new provisions were added without separate analysis of whether they should apply to commercial CIDs, inadvertently subjecting commercial CIDs to consumer protection provisions aimed at homeowners.

The New Act has been established separate from the Davis-Stirling Act to clarify the law applicable to commercial CIDs and prevent further confusion when new consumer protection provisions are added to the common interest development laws.

Provisions of the New Law

The New Act mirrors much of the reorganized Davis-Stirling Act with respect to statutory definitions, the types and contents of governing documents, powers of the association, establishment and collection of regular and special assessments, and resolution of construction defect claims. However, the extent of member protections in the commercial CID context have been substantially reduced through the exclusion of multiple provisions of the Davis-Stirling Act, such as, but not limited to: (1) those requiring disclosures to members, (2) those requiring “open” Board meetings and broad member voting rights, (3) those limiting annual increases in assessments, and (4) those requiring the association to adopt procedures for resolving disputes or for affording members certain alternative dispute resolution rights in the event of disputes with their association.

The New Act leaves most governance matters to the provisions of the CC&R and other governing documents of the association, as well as any applicable provisions of the California Corporations Code in the case of incorporated associations. Under the New Act, there are no requirements for the distribution to members of an association budget or other financial disclosures, and there is no requirement for an owner or the association to provide disclosures to prospective purchasers of separate interests. Owners within a commercial CID do not have a statutory right to request alternative dispute resolution in the event of a dispute under the governing documents, even with respect to actions taken by the board regarding delinquent assessments.

The New Act also serves to expand certain laws applicable to commercial CIDs. Under prior law, commercial CIDs were exempt from the provisions of the Davis-Stirling Act regarding amendment of CC&Rs. As a result, it was not clear what actions would be considered valid for the amendment of commercial CC&Rs. The New Act establishes amendment procedures applicable to commercial CC&Rs, similar to the procedures set forth in the Davis-Stirling Act without certain owner rights. In addition, the New Act increases the required minimum coverage amount for liability insurance for commercial CIDs. Under the New Act, a commercial CID with 100 or fewer separate interests is required to maintain at least $2 million in liability insurance (versus $500,000 under the Davis-Stirling Act) and $3 million in liability insurance if the commercial CID has over 100 separate interests (versus $1 million under the Davis-Stirling Act).

The New Act also contains a “savings clause” for certain documents and actions taken prior to its effective date. The law provides that nothing in it shall be construed to invalidate a document prepared or action taken before January 1, 2014, if the document or action was proper under the law governing common interest developments at the time that the document was prepared or the action was taken. It continues to require each commercial CID association to file an information-reporting statement with the California Secretary of State on a prescribed form.

To update governing documents in effect for existing commercial CIDs, the New Act authorizes an association board without member approval to revise existing CC&Rs to correct references to applicable law pursuant to a resolution of the board. The New Act also authorizes existing CC&Rs to be restated in corrected form and recorded in the public records provided that the board resolution authorizing such restatement is recorded as well.

In connection with a restatement and re-recording of CC&Rs, the board of a commercial CID may want to consider conducting a comprehensive review of the CC&Rs to determine if there are provisions not applicable to commercial CIDs included in their CC&Rs that could be eliminated or amended to make the operation and governance of a commercial CID less onerous. Any amendment to CC&Rs beyond correcting statutory references will require compliance with amendment procedures, such as owner approval.

Applicability of the New Act

The legislative intent with respect to the New Act is that it is to apply only to those common interest developments that are limited to commercial and industrial use. For any common interest development that includes residential and commercial use, the Davis-Stirling Act will continue to apply. Developers should carefully consider the implications of applicable law when constructing new mixed-use developments.


California promotes the use of solar energy systems. Accordingly, associations cannot (i) prohibit solar energy systems, (ii) impose restrictions that significantly increase their cost, or (iii) impose restrictions that significantly decrease their efficiency. (Civ. Code §714.)

20/20 Rule. For solar water heating systems, associations cannot impose requirements that will decrease efficiency or increase installation costs by more than 20%.

20/2000 Rule. For solar energy systems, associations cannot impose requirements that will decrease efficiency by more than 20% or increase installation costs by more than $2,000. As provided for in Civil Code §714.1, associations may impose reasonable provisions that restrict the installation of solar energy systems installed in common areas. “Reasonable” restrictions are those where solar units were comparable in performance and cost to unapproved type of unit homeowner sought to install on the roof of his home. Palos Verdes Homeowners Association v. Rodman (1986) 182 Cal.App.3d 324

Common Area Installations. At this point, it is unclear whether owners have the right to install solar systems in the common areas. It appears that the stronger argument is that they do not. Members do not control the common areas; all such control is through an elected board of directors. Moreover, any installation in the common areas would result in an exclusive use easement which, per Civil Code §1363.07, requires approval by 2/3rds of the membership.

Exclusive Use Roofs. Townhouse owners with exclusive use common area roofs have a better argument that they have a right to install solar panels on their roofs. However, if the association is obligated to maintain those roofs, it raises significant issues related to the increased cost of maintenance and whether those costs can be billed to the owners who install solar panels.

Architectural Review. 
If an application is not denied in writing within 60 days from the date of receipt of the application, the application shall be deemed approved, unless that delay is the result of a reasonable request for additional information. If approvals are willfully avoided or delayed, an association can be penalized up to $1,000. (Civ. Code §714(f).) Aesthetics are a proper part of the architectural review process, provided it does not significantly increase the cost of the installation. (Tesoro del Valle v. Griffen.)

RECOMMENDATION: Associations should adopt written architectural standards in consultation with legal counsel regarding the installation of solar energy systems.

The New Davis Sterling Act

January 2014 is now here and Boards, managers and attorneys have already begun preparing for the reorganized and relocated Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act. There are some things your HOA can do to be more ready.

•The new law permits associations to give electronic notices to members who agree to accept such method of communication. This allows for savings with respect to cutting down on postage and paper. In order to implement this Boards and Management Company’s will have to encourage their members to sign an “opt in” notification form. Your association can include it in the next assessment mailing, and have them available at the management office and at board meetings. Remind owners that this will not only save them space and clutter, but will help keep the budget (and therefore assessments) under control.

• Board’s should review their disciplinary hearing policies (or create some). The new law requires that when the association imposes a reimbursement claim against a member, that claim must be handled using the same process as for member discipline. The law currently does not provide much guidance to Boards as to how to conduct these hearings and, unfortunately, that is not going to change in the new year. The increase in these hearings in the future means your HOA closed sessions are going to become much longer. Consider adopting policies regarding the conduct of disciplinary and reimbursement hearings, including a reasonable time limit on the homeowner opposing the discipline or reimbursement item.

•Begin reviewing your HOA’s “Annual Budget Report” and “Annual Policy Statement”. These are collections of disclosures that your association is already required to make, with some very small additional items. Instead of waiting 60 days prior to your fiscal year end to use the new format of annual member disclosure, begin reviewing the disclosure now. Check the new Sections 5300 and 5310 for the list of which disclosures go in which packet.

•Get ready to update your CC&Rs and bylaws so that any current CID act sections (1350-1379) are updated to the new Civil Code sections (4000-6150). The new law (at Section 4235) allows boards to amend their CC&Rs and bylaws only to update any references to the CID act to replace the old statute numbers with the new statute numbers. Most of the HOA law firms already have conversion charts, and one is also available at A board could use a conversion chart and prepare its own amendments, but consulting your HOA lawyer is a good idea. Amended CC&Rs and bylaws can be prepared by year end, and then adopted by the board at its first open meeting in 2014.

Original article written by Kelly G. Richardson is Managing Partner of Richardson Harman Ober PC, a law firm known for community association advice.



Civil Code Regarding Electric Vehicles within HOAs

Electric Charging Stations
Starting January 1, 2012, any restriction which prohibits or restricts the installation or use of an electric vehicle (“EV”) charging station in a common interest development is void and unenforceable. (Civ. Code §1353.9(a).)Owner Requirements. If a homeowner wants to install an EV charging station in a common area or an exclusive use common area (his parking space), he must meet applicable health and safety standards and requirements imposed by state and local authorities as well as all other applicable zoning, land use or other ordinances, or land use permits. (Civ. Code §1353.9(c).) In addition, he must obtain HOA approval and agree in writing to the following (Civ. Code §1353.9(f)(1)):

  • Architectural Standards. Comply with the association’s architectural standards.
  • Licensed Contractor. Use a licensed contractor to install the station.
  • Insurance. Within 14 days of approval, provide a certificate of insurance that names the common interest development as an additional insured under the homeowner’s insurance policy.
  • Utility Costs. Pay for electricity usage associated with the station.

Duties & Liability. The homeowner and each successive homeowner of the EV charging station shall be responsible for all of the following (Civ. Code §1353.9(f)(2)):

  • Damage. Damage to the station, common areas, exclusive common areas, or adjacent units resulting from the installation, maintenance, repair, removal, or replacement of the station.
  • Maintenance. Maintenance, removal, repair, and replacement of the electric vehicle charging station until it has been removed from the common area or exclusive use common area.
  • Electricity. Electricity associated with the station.
  • Disclosure. Disclosing the EV charging station to buyers and the related responsibilities of the homeowner.
  • Insurance. Maintain an umbrella liability coverage policy in the amount of one million dollars ($1,000,000) covering owner’s obligations and naming the HOA as an additional insured under the policy with a right to notice of cancellation. (Civ. Code §1353.9(f)(e).)

HOA Deadline to Respond. If approval is required for the installation or use of an EV charging station, the application must be processed and approved in the same manner as any other architectural application and not willfully avoided or delayed. Approval or denial of the application must be in writing. If an application is not denied in writing within 60 days from receipt of the application, the application shall be deemed approved, unless that delay is the result of a reasonable request for additional information. (Civ. Code §1353.9(e).)

Reasonable Restrictions. Associations may impose reasonable restrictions on EV charging stations provided those restrictions do not significantly increase the cost of the station or significantly decrease its efficiency or specified performance. (Civ. Code §1353.9(b)(2).)

Utility Lines Panels & Meters. Boards may grant exclusive use of common areas to members who run utility lines and install meters in the common areas for charging stations in an owner’s garage or parking space. Associations may enter into license agreements with owners who install charging stations in the common areas. (Civ. Code §1363.07.) Installing circuit breakers, conduit and wiring from the association’s electrical panel to the parking space can either be done by the association and billed to the owner or it can be done by the owner. Who does the work depends on how much control the association wants over the installation. If the common area electrical panel cannot handle the extra load created by the charging station, the panel will need to be upgraded. All costs associated with the upgrade are at the requesting owner’s expense.

“Public” Stations. The revised statute gives associations and owners authority to install a charging station in the common area for the use of all members. It gives authority to associations to develop rules for the use of “public” charging stations and allows associations to create new parking spaces where none previously existed to facilitate their installation. (Civ. Code §1353.9(h).)

Common Area Private Stations. Owners may install “private” charging stations in the common areas but only if installing it in an owner’s exclusive use common area is impossible or unreasonably expensive. (Civ. Code §1353.9(g).)

New Parking Space. An association may create a new parking space where one did not previously exist to facilitate the installation of an electric vehicle charging station. (Civ. Code §1353.9(i).)