A response to Curt Sproul's published opinion "Don't weaken homeowners' associations"

August 12, 2005

By Ann Roth (View author info)
Copyright Ann Roth

Curt Sproul - a lawyer who assisted in the Davis Stirling Common Interest Development Act rendered the following in the opinion section of a newspaper. Following is the "Other View" of the "Other View".
----------------------------------------------------

Other view: Don't weaken homeowners' associations

(The title in and of itself is telling. Should it read - Don't weaken homeowner associations - only the homeowners?)

By Curt Sproul -- Special To The Bee
Published 2:15 am PDT Friday, August 12, 2005

SB 137 would bar homeowner associations (HOAs) from using lien and foreclosure processes to collect delinquent assessments below $2,500 - potentially endangering the ability of HOAs to maintain their communities.

(Potentially endangering the HOA? How about the danger to the homeowner of being left homeless on the street due to some tyrant board member agenda? It could happen. Not only that - Curt needs to ask several other State Attorney Generals if FORECLOSURE BY NEIGHBOR is allowed in their State. All bets are on that he finds more than a few that don't allow non-judicial foreclosure by neighbor in homeowner associations.)

Twenty years after California enacted its comprehensive law dealing with CIDs, or common interest developments, lawmakers continue to grapple with how to regulate the HOAs that run these increasingly prevalent subdivisions. Changing times and new issues have led to an almost perpetual string of amendments to the Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act.

(Homeowner advocates like to refer to it as a quagmire. When California enacted the Davis Stirling Quagmire 20 years ago, that is probably about how many average "Joe Homeowners" even realized it was about to be enacted - 20.)

SB 137, by Sen. Denise Ducheny, D-San Diego, would compromise the HOAs' duty to collect homeowner assessments to fund basic amenities such as landscaping, street sweeping, liability insurance and upkeep on common meeting rooms, gyms and swimming pools. In some condominium complexes, repairs to shared roofs and walls are covered. Owners grant HOAs the right to collect these assessments in the covenants, conditions and restrictions they sign, in effect agreeing to assess themselves monthly or annually.

(Whooaaaaaaa - hold on there cowboy - why is it that there are OTHER STATES that DON'T grant handfuls of neighbors the power to foreclose on their fellow neighbor? They have complex condo complexes and other types of HOA communes with all the same liabilities - they are NOT amenities as Mr. Cunt referred to them. How do they do it?)

Before 1985, California had no uniform law regulating CIDs. Instead, various legal codes regulated condominiums and planned unit developments. Over time, changes were made in one law without corresponding changes made to other, related laws. To address the confusion, state Sen. Larry Stirling and Assemblyman Gray Davis commissioned a Select Assembly Committee of real estate stakeholder groups. The committee accomplished four purposes in the Davis-Stirling Act of 1985:

(And what, pray tell, did they do before 1985? How did they survive?)

• Consolidated laws governing CIDs
(consolidated laws to control homeowners)

• Standardized treatment of different types of CIDs
(standardized abuse of different types of homeowners)

• Validated existing practices of HOAs
(Huh? Run that by us again? Wasn't the "existing" practice BEFORE l985 that non-judicial foreclosure was not a practice?)

• Resolved problems that surface in the day-to-day operation of CIDs
(So, we have an admission here - there are problems in the "day to day operation of CIDs"? What a way to live. Would you want to live with even more "day to day" problems than life already has to offer without living in a homeowner association?)

But over the past 20 years, several ambiguous or ill-considered amendments have been added to the act. If adopted, SB 137 would fall into the latter category.

(What, pray tell, are the several ambiguous and ill-considered amendments he speaks of? The right to fly the flag? Have a pet? Keep your home?)

It would compromise the fundamental duty of HOAs to collect homeowner assessments to pay for basic amenities. Under the average California assessment of $152 a month, SB 137 could force responsible homeowners to subsidize delinquent homeowners for no fewer than 16 months with higher assessments to ensure the development's upkeep. That's because under the legislation it would take 16 months to trigger a nonjudicial foreclosure. Right now, because the lien and foreclosure process can be used to collect delinquent assessments below $2,500, HOAs can take action earlier against homeowners delinquent in their assessments.

(How do we even begin to justify this one? Let's see, the "average California assessment of $152/month". Let's do some basic math - $152 times 12 months = $1824/yr. $1824//yr times 30 years = $54,720. What could you do with that much money at retirement? A $50,000 motor home would be nice. Of course, that figure does NOT include the ability to invest that money elsewhere and collect a greater return on it.)

If these developments continue to increase as the lifestyle of choice in California, the HOAs must be able to do their job. Davis-Stirling recognized that HOAs couldn't perform their most basic functions without a way to ensure that homeowners pay their fair share on time. As we look toward the next 20 years, future changes to the Davis-Stirling Act must not compromise HOAs' ability to perform this basic duty.

(Pardon me while I roll on the floor laughing - The lifestyle of choice? Mr. Curt - Could you please provide a copy of the study that proves that homeowner associations are the "lifestyle of choice" for Californians? I think most people desire to pay their fair share of any debt. They desire to protect their credit. They don't want excessive liens put on their homes so that when they sell they have no equity.)

(For the occassional dead beat that refuses to pay a penny - it is doubtful it would cause the Homeowner Association to go bankrupt. Even if it did go bankrupt - so much better and safer for the homeowners anyway. Let the people do their work and pay their fair share like they do in the row homes of London, or San Francisco, or Tokyo.)

(Mr. Curt Sproul - We know you are a lawyer- that much is obvious. Do you, or are you affiliated with any business in the business of making money off of homeowner associations? Do you engage in business practices where you make money off homeowner associations in any way shape or form?)

(We await your prompt reply.)

Editor's Note: The former wife of Curtis Sproul owns a collection company that forecloses on homes in homeowner associations. A few years ago, she attempted to foreclose on the home of a severely disabled man. That raised a fury of protest from homeowners. See the attached story for more details.:

Group halts foreclosure against ailing homeowner - Association board hired forclosure company owned by association attorney's former wife