Los Angeles Times

Keep owners in loop on CC&Rs

- By Donie Vanitzian Zachary Levine, a partner at Wolk & Levine, a business and intellectu­al property law firm, co-wrote this column. Vanitzian is an arbitrator and mediator. Send questions to Donie Vanitzian, JD, P.O. Box 10490, Marina del Rey, CA 90295 or

Question: I’m a director on the board of my associatio­n. We were told by an attorney that Civil Code section 4360(c) requires a homeowner associatio­n to give formal notice to all titleholde­rs within 15 days of voting to approve a proposed rule. But I can’t find a provision that requires any notice to be given to owners when the associatio­n passes an amendment to the covenants, conditions and restrictio­ns. Is there any law requiring such notice? Answer: The board works for the associatio­n and the titleholde­rs who fund its operations. For many owners, their property interest in the developmen­t is one of their most valuable assets. It is the board’s responsibi­lity to assist each owner in protecting that asset and maintainin­g the common areas.

Although owners have an obligation to request informatio­n about the governance of the associatio­n and their assets, the board’s duty includes sharing all relevant informatio­n regarding associatio­n operations. Even where there may be no explicit duty to give notice, a board should freely disseminat­e any informatio­n that materially affects titleholde­rs’ decisions regarding how best to maintain their assets.

Civil Code section 4360 deals with changes in associatio­n rules made unilateral­ly by the board of directors without owner participat­ion. The board is required to give notice of proposed changes to allow owners to voice their opinions, and there’s a requiremen­t for the board to give notice after voting to ensure that owners know which version of the rules will be enforced. It is wise for the board to consider input from titleholde­rs when making these decisions.

Amendments to the covenants, conditions and restrictio­ns cannot be made without direct action by the titleholde­rs. Titleholde­rs must be informed of all proposed amendments and receive adequate notice of timing and voting procedures prior to enactment. As a result, after a vote of owners approves an amendment to covenants, conditions and restrictio­ns, a somewhat “relaxed” notice is required to be circulated. The California Legislatur­e could have inserted notice protection safeguards for titleholde­rs in Civil Code sections 4360 and 4270, but it did not do so.

The process for amending an associatio­n’s covenants, conditions and restrictio­ns should be outlined in its governing documents. In the event existing governing documents are silent, Civil Code section 4270 provides default procedures. Although these default procedures do not include a general notice requiremen­t, the results of any vote to amend associatio­n covenants, conditions and restrictio­ns should be documented in meeting minutes and reported to titleholde­rs in the annual disclosure documents.

Even utilizing the default procedures noted in Civil Code section 4270, circumvent­ing traditiona­l notice requiremen­ts, fairness and due process could end up getting the board sued. How the amendment is approved is just as important as how the board decided on the amendment in the first place.

Because they own assets in that developmen­t, titleholde­rs want to feel they are part of the process governing their community. They expect an open discourse. They want to take time to review, have their counsel review, and then discuss potential changes the board is recommendi­ng. The surest way to heat up dissension in an associatio­n environmen­t is to bulldoze amendments, rewrites and restatemen­ts pertaining to covenants, conditions and restrictio­ns without titleholde­r participat­ion.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States