The bitter e-mail skirmishes at the venerable Villa Riviera have subsided.
A new Villa Riviera Condominium Association board has been seated. And a settlement has been reached on a lawsuit that touched on a couple of the old issues and on a railing on the 15th floor.
The central squabble centered on a $3.9 million renovation of one of Long Beach's historic landmarks, a 1929 Gothic-style tower on the southeast corner of Ocean Boulevard and Alamitos Avenue.
Critics of the work became embroiled in conflicts that resulted in health and fire inspectors and police being called.
The project included removal of all 15 layers of the building's paint, to be replaced with about 3,000 gallons of new paint.
A low bidder, who came in with an estimate of $2 million, did not get awarded the final contract. A second round of bidding eventually resulted in a $3.9 million contract.
That was one issue in a lawsuit filed by the Marrujo family - Julie Marrujo, who owns a studio, and her parents, Gudelia and Ernest, who own a 15th-story penthouse. It was filed Sept. 20. 2007, in Los Angeles Superior Court and sought to look at the Villa Riviera association's budgeting records and block efforts to remove the railing. The recent settlement allows for the release of the documents, but the railing needs to be replaced.
The owner, Ernest Marrujo, will need to remove the railing, but the city will work with him to set up others, according to his daughter.
Also as part of the settlement, the association will pay the Marrujos' attorney fees of $300,000.
However, the family members were not awarded refunds on their assessments for the renovation work - $60,000 for Ernest Marrujo's penthouse and $30,000 for Julie Marrujo's studio.
By Joe Segura, Staff Writer-Press Telegram
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Torrance condo association won't let litigants run for board
What if Torrance residents passed a law preventing people from holding office if they had brought any legal action against the city?
That's essentially what happened at Village Palos Verdes, a 180-unit condominium complex on Palos Verdes Boulevard at the far south end of the city.
A group of residents filed a lawsuit last year challenging a $75,000 assessment on each homeowner that they consider excessive.
The assessment was levied to pay for a
$13.5 million exterior renovation project that a majority of the association's board of directors believes is necessary.
However, some residents believe the necessity for repairs of this scope was not fully disclosed before a majority of association members voted in favor of the assessment.
Those residents - some of whom cannot afford to pay the hefty fee while others merely question its necessity - face foreclosure and eviction if they do not pay up.
In response, the board proposed a new bylaw preventing any resident from holding office for six years if he or she brought any sort of legal action against the association.
The apparent genesis of the new bylaw was an annual election, originally scheduled for this Thursday, in which two of the five board seats were up for re-election.
Four of the five members - excluding panelist David Silverberg - are in favor of the assessment.
But board members apparently feared the balance of power could
shift, putting what board President Carma Hardin has called "a minor militant faction" in control of the board and placing the assessment in jeopardy.
"The opposition could put some of their own on the board, making three including Silverberg, and then this will all be a greater mess," Hardin wrote in a March e-mail to the contractor that is now part of the legal record.
The bylaw passed in August with 69 members voting in favor and 37 opposed. That's a majority of those who voted, but a minority of the association's membership, Silverberg noted.
Residents whose dues are not up to date, including the more than 20 who are part of the lawsuit and either can not or will not pay the assessment, are ineligible to vote.
"It's a travesty to the concept of the rights of an individual," Silverberg said. "They purposely decided to change the bylaws to penalize homeowners from exercising their legal rights. It was purely a punitive measure."
Interestingly, Silverberg had brought his own legal action against the board.
He did so because the association's legal committee, which consists of the other four board members but not him, prevented him from seeing documents he believes may call into question the extent of the repairs needed to justify the assessment.
Silverberg said that legal action had been settled in the past week - although he still hasn't seen all the documents he has requested - but added that it's unclear whether he is now banned from running for re-election.
But two potential candidates were prevented from running.
Sue Dell, who lost a small-claims action against the association questioning the legality of the collection of a $600-a-month fee aimed at paying for the renovations that have not yet begun, could not run. (The association cannot get a construction loan in part because of the ongoing lawsuit.)
Neither could Tom Griffing, a plaintiff in the lawsuit against the association.
So Alan R. Johnston, the Del Mar-based attorney representing the dissident homeowners, sought and won a temporary restraining order Tuesday preventing the election from being held given that bylaw.
"Unfortunately, this is a classic horror story of a power hungry majority attempting to squelch a vocal minority politically to obtain the result it wishes," he wrote in a legal brief. "`Just slam it down the minority's throats' appears to be the mantra of the majority."
A Los Angeles Superior Court judge sided with Johnston and issued the restraining order, saying the election couldn't be held unless Griffing's name was placed on the ballot.
Laura Snoke, the association's attorney, called the ruling "a very technical interpretation" of the state law governing elections of such entities that was "not appropriate."
Such bylaws are common in private associations because they eliminate a potential "conflict of interest" of having someone sit on a body they are suing or had sued.
"These are private covenants people agree to," she said. "This is not a municipality imposing law on people."
Johnston disagrees.
Courts have recognized that associations are quasigovernmental bodies because of their ability to implement rules and regulations, he said.
He believes the bylaw is "arbitrary and unenforceable" because it has no rational relationship to the purpose of the association to protect the affected property.
"They're just trying to pound these people into oblivion," he said. "They're taking away their ability to have any kind of say in the running of the organization. It's the most egregious thing I've ever seen."
Each side cites legal precedent supporting their argument.
Meanwhile, once the restraining order expires in 20 days, Johnston must seek a preliminary injunction at another court hearing later this month.
Meanwhile, Silverberg is still seeking answers to questions he believes will either justify the board's actions or call them into question.
"I have not seen any evidence of a need of a major renovation," he said. "The board behaved like a clique. They seemed to be more interested in their personal friendships and their team approach than in analyzing anything."
Story by: Nick Green, Staff writer for Daily Breeze.
That's essentially what happened at Village Palos Verdes, a 180-unit condominium complex on Palos Verdes Boulevard at the far south end of the city.
A group of residents filed a lawsuit last year challenging a $75,000 assessment on each homeowner that they consider excessive.
The assessment was levied to pay for a
$13.5 million exterior renovation project that a majority of the association's board of directors believes is necessary.
However, some residents believe the necessity for repairs of this scope was not fully disclosed before a majority of association members voted in favor of the assessment.
Those residents - some of whom cannot afford to pay the hefty fee while others merely question its necessity - face foreclosure and eviction if they do not pay up.
In response, the board proposed a new bylaw preventing any resident from holding office for six years if he or she brought any sort of legal action against the association.
The apparent genesis of the new bylaw was an annual election, originally scheduled for this Thursday, in which two of the five board seats were up for re-election.
Four of the five members - excluding panelist David Silverberg - are in favor of the assessment.
But board members apparently feared the balance of power could
shift, putting what board President Carma Hardin has called "a minor militant faction" in control of the board and placing the assessment in jeopardy.
"The opposition could put some of their own on the board, making three including Silverberg, and then this will all be a greater mess," Hardin wrote in a March e-mail to the contractor that is now part of the legal record.
The bylaw passed in August with 69 members voting in favor and 37 opposed. That's a majority of those who voted, but a minority of the association's membership, Silverberg noted.
Residents whose dues are not up to date, including the more than 20 who are part of the lawsuit and either can not or will not pay the assessment, are ineligible to vote.
"It's a travesty to the concept of the rights of an individual," Silverberg said. "They purposely decided to change the bylaws to penalize homeowners from exercising their legal rights. It was purely a punitive measure."
Interestingly, Silverberg had brought his own legal action against the board.
He did so because the association's legal committee, which consists of the other four board members but not him, prevented him from seeing documents he believes may call into question the extent of the repairs needed to justify the assessment.
Silverberg said that legal action had been settled in the past week - although he still hasn't seen all the documents he has requested - but added that it's unclear whether he is now banned from running for re-election.
But two potential candidates were prevented from running.
Sue Dell, who lost a small-claims action against the association questioning the legality of the collection of a $600-a-month fee aimed at paying for the renovations that have not yet begun, could not run. (The association cannot get a construction loan in part because of the ongoing lawsuit.)
Neither could Tom Griffing, a plaintiff in the lawsuit against the association.
So Alan R. Johnston, the Del Mar-based attorney representing the dissident homeowners, sought and won a temporary restraining order Tuesday preventing the election from being held given that bylaw.
"Unfortunately, this is a classic horror story of a power hungry majority attempting to squelch a vocal minority politically to obtain the result it wishes," he wrote in a legal brief. "`Just slam it down the minority's throats' appears to be the mantra of the majority."
A Los Angeles Superior Court judge sided with Johnston and issued the restraining order, saying the election couldn't be held unless Griffing's name was placed on the ballot.
Laura Snoke, the association's attorney, called the ruling "a very technical interpretation" of the state law governing elections of such entities that was "not appropriate."
Such bylaws are common in private associations because they eliminate a potential "conflict of interest" of having someone sit on a body they are suing or had sued.
"These are private covenants people agree to," she said. "This is not a municipality imposing law on people."
Johnston disagrees.
Courts have recognized that associations are quasigovernmental bodies because of their ability to implement rules and regulations, he said.
He believes the bylaw is "arbitrary and unenforceable" because it has no rational relationship to the purpose of the association to protect the affected property.
"They're just trying to pound these people into oblivion," he said. "They're taking away their ability to have any kind of say in the running of the organization. It's the most egregious thing I've ever seen."
Each side cites legal precedent supporting their argument.
Meanwhile, once the restraining order expires in 20 days, Johnston must seek a preliminary injunction at another court hearing later this month.
Meanwhile, Silverberg is still seeking answers to questions he believes will either justify the board's actions or call them into question.
"I have not seen any evidence of a need of a major renovation," he said. "The board behaved like a clique. They seemed to be more interested in their personal friendships and their team approach than in analyzing anything."
Story by: Nick Green, Staff writer for Daily Breeze.
Dog Bites!
Is an HOA or Condo or Owner Responsible for A Tenant's Dog's Bite? A dog can be "man's best friend." It can also be "man's worst enemy." Vicious dogs are a menace to all that are within their reach. Unpredictable dogs are ... well ... unpredictable. There are 11 breeds of dogs that have been identified by some insurance companies as uninsurable. Some HOAs and Condo Boards want to ban these dogs from the development.The requirements for this are for another blog. This blog is about whether HOAs or Condo Associations are responsible for injuries caused by dogs that are kept in the development. There is a case on this. The premise of the case decision is that the absence of actual knowledge of dangerous propensities of the dog is a factor in determining who is or is not responsible for injuries caused by the dog. In the case, it was a tenant's dog that ran out of a unit and knocked down a 71 year old resident causing injuries. Neither the owner of the unit (the landlord), the landlord's property manager, or the HOA Board had any knowledge that the dog in question (the tenant's dog) was dangerous. No complaints had been made to the HOA. Even though the injured party presented testimony of a dog expert that Jack Russell terriers should not be confined to a small area such as a condominium, the judge found that was not conclusive evidence the dog was vicious and likely to attack. So that took care of any "should have known" allegations. The judge found that neither the unit owner landlord, the property manager, nor the homeowner's association had previous knowledge of problems with the tenant's dog and so they are not liable for negligence or any other cause of action to the injured party. Here is a quote from the case: "Consequently, it is well established that a landlord does not owe a duty of care to protect a third party from his or her tenant's dog unless the landlord has actual knowledge of the dog's dangerous propensities, and the ability to control or prevent the harm," the judge ruled. The same goes for the association and others that were pursued for damages. The owner of the dog would have liability; however, the common problem here is that tenants often are without the financial capacity or protection (because they often fail to insure) to compensate a "victim" so that person's attorney often looks around for a "deeper pocket". The decision discussed is based on the 2006 California Court of Appeal decision in Chee v. Amanda Goldt Property Management, 50 Cal.Rptr.3d 40. What you should not take away from this blog is a misconception that you are completely safe if you are in an HOA, on the Board, managing the property, or anyone other than a dog owner whose dog causes injury to others. There are plenty of cases that hold HOAs and others responsible for injuries caused by animals when those persons have some responsibility because of their management role over the property where the animal is kept and they fail in some way to assure that those using the property are safe from danger. The key is - when any danger is indicated or reported, or there is a situation where the danger should have been apparent, it is time to do something about it ... what to do depends on the circumstances. Watch for a blog on an idiot, a biker chick, an aggresive german shepard, a pig's ear, and two police officers for a real life question about what to do in a situation where there is an aggressive dog on premises in violation of the rules of the association.
Monday, October 12, 2009
Welcome
Welcome to the all new California Condo News Site.
We aim to be Your primary News Source for California Condominiums, Home Owners Associations and Every one involved in California Condo living.
Please visit often and We welcome your suggestions and news stories.
We aim to be Your primary News Source for California Condominiums, Home Owners Associations and Every one involved in California Condo living.
Please visit often and We welcome your suggestions and news stories.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
