Beth Grimm wants disputes to go to court

January 27, 2005

By AHRC News Services
Copyright AHRC News Services

Because homeowner associations in California are being roiled by problem after problem, the California Law Revision Commission (CLRC) has proposed setting up an agency to handle these problems. This proposal has been met with vociferous opposition from members of CAI (Community Association Institute).

Beth Grimm, a leading CAI lawyer and long time foreclosure lobbyist, wrote a letter of opposition to CLRC on December 28, 2004. She cites two major objections, cost and public disclosure.

CLRC is proposing that the new agency be funded by charging an $5 fee to each home in a homeowner association. This is hardly a budget breaking proposal. It is less than the price of one movie ticket. It is probable the cheapest insurance around. Ms. Grimm charges $200 per hour! It would take a homeowner 40 years of paying the agency fee for just one hour of her time!

Is it any wonder then that Ms. Grimm wants the courts to settle homeowner association issues?

• A homeowner pays $75,000 over a parking issue.
• Another homeowner pays $140,000 over a light on a tennis court.
• Seniors in their 80's and 90's are forced to pay $78 a month for a golf course that they cannot use and several lose their homes to pay the homeowner association CAI lawyers' fees. .

Grimm attempts to justify her position by asserting that California law allows a prevailing party to recover attorney fees. She conveniently fails to point out that a homeowner going up against a homeowner association is like somebody with a water pistol going up against a B-2 bomber. Homeowner associations are backed by multi-million dollar insurance policies and all of the rich resources of the association. She also conveniently fails to mention that it is the lawyers who are in a win-win situation. They get paid no matter who wins or loses.

Once again, money seems to act as the great fabricator of false ideas.

Ms. Grimm also objects to the new agency posting violations by homeowner associations on its websites. Ms. Grimm describes this as "excessive punishment" and complains that everyone in the Association would "have to pay by suffering the stigma attached to a public proclamation of wrongdoing."

It is hard to see how the individual members would "suffer" because of something that their board did. Furthermore, her surprising proposal to hide wrongdoing goes against our fundamental belief that sunshine is better than darkness, that full disclosure is better than secretively hiding information. Full disclosure would serve as a deterrent to those contemplating some nefarious act, and it might act as a powerful incentive for homeowners to remove the offending board members. In addition, prospective purchasers should know what type of homeowner association they are buying into. Cockroaches like the dark, but cockroaches should hardly be the model for homeowner associations.

Homeowner associations have come to a fork in the road. They can careen down the same disastrous road that is lined by brigand lawyers seeking to fleece homeowners every inch of the way. This is a grim option. Or they can travel a road where there is at least some law enforcement and protection. The CLRC proposal offers that hope.

We think the choice is obvious.