|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Sorry not to have responded to the small claims court question earlier. I don't have the time for back and forth argument, and may not see all of the discussion threads that develop, but I will try to answer serious questions about the CLRC proposal as I have time to do so.
Regarding small claims v. the proposed Bureau:
The small claims court would not be able to provide as flexible a remedy as the proposed Bureau. Small claims court is intended primarily as a forum to resolve small monetary claims, as Kate correctly noted. It has only limited equitable powers and cannot impose an injunction.
By contrast, the Bureau would have broad equitable powers, including the power to impose an injunction. It could also impose punitive sanctions in appropriate circumstances. The Bureau could also exercise post-enforcement supervision to ensure that the requirements of a conciliation agreement or citation are being met.
The Bureau would also bear the cost of investigating and prosecuting a violation — a burden that would be borne by an individual homeowner in small claims court. The Bureau could subpoena documents and compel testimony.
Over time, the Bureau would develop specialized expertise that a judicial officer in small claims court would not have. This would lead to a coherent pattern of enforcement decisions governed by publicly available precedents. Decisions in the small claims court would probably not be uniform in their outcome.
Also, the proposed Bureau would have other functions that are not provided by the small claims court: providing CID information on the Internet, answering homeowner phone inquiries, and mediating disputes.
Posted Mar 4 2005 8:40PM CET
|
| |
|
| |
Brian Hebert
, California |
| |
|
|
| |
California Small Claims Court is limited to $5,000 in money damage awards and cannot make declaratory judgments on issues.
If a homeowner or the HOA seeks money damages from the other for $5,000 or less, then Small Claims Court is a viable low-cost option to resolve disputes.
No party is permitted to be represented by an attorney for the initial Small Claims hearing. If the plaintiff loses the claim, then the issue is over. If a defendant has the court issue a money judgment, then the defendant can appeal the ruling. On appeal, all money-damage issues are litigated de novo (new). This appeal ruling is final and no further appeals are permitted.
This is California law.
Kate Davis, J.D.
HomeownersUnited.org
Sacramento, California
Posted Mar 4 2005 4:46AM CET
|
| |
|
| |
Kate Davis
(View Profile)
Sacramento, California |
| |
|
|
| |
Sometimes you just want to sing "ring around the rosie, pocket full of posies, ashes, ashes, we all fall down."
OK, so what will change - homeowners are still left holding the bag for the increased costs, liability and risk that comes with HOA corporate housing unlike the traditional private property type home.
Couldn't Small Claims Court do pretty much the same thing as you all are proposing here?
Posted Mar 1 2005 5:13PM CET
|
| |
|
| |
Username withheld
, ot |
| |
|
|
Return to 'California Law Revision Commission Answers Some Questions' |
Submit a comment
|
|
|
|
