On September 25, 2020, Governor Newsom signed Senate Bill 908, the Debt Collection Licensing Act (“SB 908”), which creates a new licensing law applicable to debt collectors and debt buyers, administered by the Department of Business Oversight (“DBO”), effective January 1, 2022. Moreover, SB 908 provides for licensure regulation, oversight of debt collectors, definitions of terms, application requirements (including criminal background checks), maintaining surety bonds, and other related changes.

Under AB 3182, California Civil Code section 4741 is added to the Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act and renders void and unenforceable any provision in a governing document or amendment thereto “that prohibits, has the effect of prohibiting, or unreasonably restricts the rental or leasing of” a separate interest “to a renter, lessee, or tenant.” Despite this prohibition, Section 4741 does authorize an HOA to adopt and enforce:

Moreover, Section 4741 adds that a separate interest (including Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units) is not considered “occupied by a renter” if the separate interest is also owner-occupied. Thus, for example, a cap on the number of rentals within a HOA would not apply to an owner renting out individual rooms within his or her separate interest.

For more information on AB 3182, check out our new library article entitled: "The Housing Crisis & HOA Rental Rules"

On September 18, 2020, Governor Newsom signed Assembly Bill No. 1885 (“AB 1885”), which drastically modifies a debtor’s protection in their homestead in the event of a bankruptcy. AB 1885, which took effect January 1, 2021, makes two (2) important changes:

While the sharp increase in the value of the homestead exemption may be staggering at first blush, AB 1885 is adjusting state law to account for the drastic increase in property values that California has experienced over the past several years.

In short, AB 1885 will only have an impact on an HOAs ability to satisfy a delinquent account if the delinquent Owner files bankruptcy. While AB 1885 may reduce some potential revenue sources to satisfy the debtor’s creditors, there are still various collection options available.

Many homeowners associations (“HOA”) are professionally managed by a managing agent (“Manager”). The Manager is generally tasked with the obligation of carrying out the decisions of the HOA’s Board of Directors (“Board”), as well as day-to-day operations of the HOA. Because they operate as an agent of the HOA, most Managers require the HOA to indemnify them from any claims, damages and losses arising out of Manager’s performance, except to the extent that such claims, damages or losses are the result of Manager’s gross negligence or willful misconduct. Because of this indemnification obligation, HOAs typically name their Manager as “additional insured” under the HOA’s commercial general liability insurance policy (“CGL Insurance”). If the HOA and Manager are sued, and there is potential coverage under the policy, the insurer will provide a defense for both the HOA and Manager (at the insurer’s expense). However, as one HOA recently learned, it is equally important to name Manager as additional insured under its Directors and Officers insurance policy (“D&O Insurance”).

In Auburn Woods I Homeowners Assn. v. State Farm General Ins. Co., an owner filed a lawsuit against Auburn Woods I Homeowners Association (“Auburn”) and its Manager, requesting that the trial court set aside the foreclosure sale that had taken place, as well as other forms of relief. (Id.) Auburn tendered the action to State Farm who denied the claim under Auburn’s CGL Insurance but accepted the claim as to Auburn only under its D&O Insurance; State Farm refused to provide Manager with a defense thereby requiring Auburn to defend Manager at its own expense pursuant to Manager’s full-service management agreement. (Id. at p. *9.)

Auburn and Manager filed a lawsuit against State Farm for breach of contract, claiming, among other things, that State Farm had breached the terms of Auburn’s D&O Insurance policy when it refused to provide a defense for Manager. (Id.) The trial court agreed with State Farm’s position, holding that Manager was not named as additional insured therefore relieving State Farm of its obligation to defend. (Id.) The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s decision. The Court further disagreed with Auburn’s argument that its insurance agent had a contractual duty to provide Manager with D&O Insurance coverage. (Id. at pp. **27-28.)

Under the Business Judgment Rule, volunteer directors are shielded from liability for decisions made when those decisions are (1) consistent with the director’s duties, (2) made in good faith, and (3) in a manner it believes to be in the best interests of the HOA and its members. (SeeLamden v. La Jolla Shores Clubdominium HOA (1999) 21 Cal.4th 249, 265; see alsoDolan-King v. Rancho Santa Fe Assn. (2000) 81 Cal. App. 4th 965, 979.) However, as clarified in the recent case of Coley v. Eskaton, the Business Judgment Rule does not uphold decisions made by directors “acting under a material conflict of interest.” ((2020) 51 Cal.App.5th 943 (“Coley”).)

In Coley, a homeowner Board member (“Owner Member”) brought legal action against the homeowners association (“Association”), two directors (collectively, “Directors”), and the Directors’ employer (Eskaton, Eskaton Village-Grass Valley, and Eskaton Properties, Inc.) (“Employer”) alleging, among other things, that the Directors “ran the [A]ssociation for the benefit of the Eskaton entities rather than the [A]ssociation and its members” in breach of their fiduciary duties. (Id. at p. *1.) In particular, the Directors were paid by Employer and “receive bonuses and incentive compensation in part based on the Eskaton Properties’ performance. Eskaton Properties’ performance, in turn, is based in part on Eskaton Village’s performance.” (Id. at p. *5.) Thus, the Directors were incentivized to ensure that the Eskaton Village performs well despite the impact said performance would have on other communities located within the Association development (i.e., the “Patio” homes).

In support of his allegations, Owner Member provided evidence that Directors improperly “voted to require the Patio homeowners to cover 83 percent of the cost associated with security services,” as well as imposed an assessment on the Patio homeowners to cover litigation expenses. (Id. at p. *7.) The result was a financial benefit to the Eskaton Village (and subsequently, the Directors). Additionally, one of the Directors improperly shared the Association’s attorney-client privileged information with Employer and Employer’s legal counsel. (Id.)

The Business Judgment Rule defense did not apply because Directors were acting under a material conflict of interest. As a result, liability was imposed against both Employer and against each Director personally.

Under California law, a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (“SLAPP”) is a lawsuit brought against a defendant as a form of punishment for engaging in protected activities. When such lawsuits are filed, the defendant may bring an “anti-SLAPP” motion to strike the plaintiff’s suit. In order to prevail on such a motion, the moving party must demonstrate that the plaintiff’s lawsuit arises from its protected activities. Once the moving party has made such a demonstration, the plaintiff may defeat the motion by showing the lawsuit has merit. Such a battle was recently fought in the case of Third Laguna Hills Mutual v. Joslin. ((2020) 49 Cal. App. 5th 336 (“Third Laguna”).)

In the case of Aldea Dos Vientos v. CalAtlantic Group, Inc., the Second District Court of Appeals overruled the Fourth District’s previous holding in Branches Neighborhood Corp. v. CalAtlantic Group, Inc. The Branches case found that homeowners associations forfeit their rights to pursue construction defect claims unless their members first vote to approve such legal action in accordance with their CC&Rs. The Branches decision was overturned upon the finding that developers cannot use the CC&Rs to veto claims made against them. The Court of Appeals held that such use of the CC&Rs not only violated public policy, but also Senate Bill No. 326, as codified by California Civil Code, section 5986(b).