Los Angeles Times

ASSOCIATIO­NS

- By Stephen Glassman and Donie Vanitzian Glassman is an attorney specializi­ng in corporate and business law. Vanitzian is an arbitrator and mediator. Send questions to P.O. Box 10490, Marina del Rey, CA 90295 or email noexit@mindspring.com.

Question: Our homeowners associatio­n has more than 150 single-family homes, and builders planted a tree in the exclusive-use unfenced frontyard of each house, either in the yard or the space between driveways.

The covenants, conditions and restrictio­ns have no language specifical­ly referencin­g removal or replacemen­t of trees and do not mandate a tree be planted in any frontyard.

Owners have removed many existing trees. An arborist confirmed our tree was diseased, and two years ago a board director gave us an oral OK to remove it.

The current board has decided that all homes without a tree must “immediatel­y” plant one.

We have received a violation notice stating we are “not in compliance with the CC&RS” and that “each owner likewise shall maintain, protect and preserve where possible the frontyard tree.... Per the governing documents, the tree must be replaced in your front or side yard.”

No such language exists in any of the governing documents, including the CC&RS. Without any input from owners, management circulated a list of what they term “acceptable trees,” but this was not part of our CC&RS.

Who’s liable for tree damage? Who compiled the tree list? What about potential uplifting of sidewalks, broken cable/gas lines and plumbing and sewer lines? Can they fine us if we do not comply?

Answer: Board instructio­ns to titleholde­rs should be put in writing as, normally, an oral OK is meaningles­s and unenforcea­ble. If nothing in your associatio­n’s CC&RS specifical­ly addresses removal, replacemen­t of or mandating frontyard trees, the board’s notice is unenforcea­ble.

It is the board’s burden to provide titleholde­rs with the actual language of the law mandating the tree replacemen­t. And, if the existing CC&RS do not document a list of so-called acceptable trees, the board cannot willy-nilly produce such a list without amending the governing documents.

The board should fully delineate who is liable for tree damage during installati­on, removal and maintenanc­e as trees continue to grow. If the tree is actually associatio­n property, then the associatio­n could be held liable for any potential damage caused by the tree.

In some developmen­ts the associatio­n owns the sidewalks and would be obligated for their maintenanc­e. In others, there is case law that even though the associatio­n does not own the city sidewalk it is still liable for unsafe conditions, concrete breakage, damage and injuries caused by commonly owned trees to these public walkways.

In addition to fines being “reasonable,” a legal protocol for fining titleholde­rs must be circulated to all owners on a yearly basis and followed as set forth in the governing documents and the Davis-stirling Act. Such fines must be assessed in accordance with the law and can be challenged.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States