Lorena Sterling, CAFM Community Association Financial Services (CAFS)
Brenda Hendricks, CCAM
The Helsing Group Inc., ACMC
Shanne Ho, CCAM- HR.ND
ProActive Professional Management
Follow @CACMchat
An archive of past issues can be found under Member Resources at CACM.org
The CACM Law Journal is a digital publication distributed four times per year to all members, in addition to supporters of the California Association of Community Managers.
DISCLAIMER: CACM does not assume responsibility for the accuracy of articles, events or announcements listed. Please be advised that the opinions of the authors who contribute to the Law Journal are those of the author only, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of CACM and other industry attorneys. Please note that in a constantly evolving industry there are frequently multiple interpretations of the controlling statutes and case law. The information contained in these articles is of a general nature and not intended as legal advice. If you have any questions, please discuss them with your association’s legal counsel.
Interested in advertising in CACM’s Law Journal?
Reach out to us at marketing@cacm.org
Guest Editor’s Note
Looking back over my 30 years working within the HOA industry, I am incredibly thankful for my time here and exceptionally pleased for the future we are providing to our newest members. I was only looking for a job when I stumbled into association management; I didn’t appreciate the MBA-like education I’d quickly received.
Attending board meetings, preparing agendas, and communicating about legal, financial, and operational matters showed me how people and businesses operate. Developing annual and project budgets, managing reserve studies, overseeing vendor contracts, and handling daily financial operations brought understanding of how business report value to their owners. Conducting regular site inspections and overseeing vendor maintenance/repair work to ensure compliance with community standards taught me stewardship and financial responsibility. Responding to homeowner inquiries, sending violation notices, and managing community communication portals opened my eyes to concepts like branding and intentional communication of service. Understanding the constantly changing state laws and subtle differences amongst governing documents developed a fascination and passion which has never released their grip. Handed the tools by thoughtful and caring employers, I was paid to learn the language of business.
Unsurprisingly, our industry has evolved as well. In the 80’s and 90’s, the Davis-Stirling Act was little more than an amalgamation of existing subdivision laws providing the framework for creation of common interest developments. Since then, CACM has provided thousands of hours of education and certification – establishing heightened standards and professionalism. California’s legislature added the Open Meeting Act and the Annual Budget Report - significantly increasing member access into the operation of their communities. Reserve Studies and the “balcony bill” substantially increased safety and awareness of the physical condition of our communities. COVID-19’s introduction of electronic meetings brought universal and remote access to board meetings, and a mute button to unruly attendees. It is better now than ever to be a professional community manager.
In accordance with its goals and charter, CACM offers this journal. Perhaps most scintillating is Stephen Levine’s, Esq. article: “The Cost of Inaction and Bad Faith in Ridley v. Rancho Palma Grande HOA.” In Ridley, a board president was held personally liable for negligently misleading homeowners (and the Court) about a hidden well under the property, apparently hoping to avoid a substantial common area expense. Then, Daniel Heaton Esq. analyzes Woolard v. Regent Real Estate Services, Inc., a case where tenants attempted to hold a community manager liable for violence which occurred within an association. Importantly, attorney Heaton both outlines the case
and then provides a protocol for how a manager can address rising threats of violence within their own communities. Megan Hall, Esq. introduces SB 410, part of the continuing clean-up and tuning of the “balcony bill”, by explaining new disclosure requirements to purchasers. Then, in her article Recent Cases Managers Should Know About, Karyn A. Larko, Esq. studies the 11640 Woodbridge Condominium Homeowners’ Assn. v. Farmers Ins. Exchange (“Woodbridge”) and Bird Rock Home Mortgage, LLC v. Breaking Ground, LP (“Bird Rock”) cases. And, in “Charging Ahead” A.J. Jahanian, Esq. discusses SB 770’s reduced insurance requirements when installing EV charging stations in common areas.
Of course, the fires in Los Angeles have changed many lives, and community managers need to lead their clients through the rebuilding process. Sam Roth Esq., in his article “SB 547 and SB 625 – What Managers Need to Know” announces new safeguards for associations facing insurance challenges in wildfire zones. Together we’ve explored Defensible Space and the EmberResistant Zone: Rules Coming Soon where Megan Hall, Esq. and Matthew T. Eisendrath, Esq. discuss the coming “ZONE O” – both in terms of what it means today, how it is evolving and how to help your boards implement these new regulations to make their communities more safe and sustainable.
I’ve been involved with CACM since I joined it in 1992. I will always be grateful for the people and the passion I have experienced as a professional property manager, an attorney, and a small business owner. I think, particularly because of our focus on continuing education, the future is brighter than ever for our industry and our industry professionals.
Mark T. Guithues, Esq. Is the founder of Community Legal Advisors Inc, a law firm providing assessment collection and general counsel services to community association clients, subdivision services to developerdeclarant clients and mediation and arbitration to homeowner clients.
CHARGING AHEAD
As California continues its push toward what it considers a “greener” future, electric vehicles (“EV”) are becoming a staple in community associations across the state. With more homeowners installing EV charging stations, managers and board members are often the first line of defense in handling approvals, installations, and ongoing compliance.
Enter Senate Bill 770 (“SB 770”), which amends Civil Code Section 4745 and tweaks the insurance requirements for these chargers. While the change aims to ease burdens on owners, it could create new challenges for associations—particularly around liability and insurance costs. Understanding what the law says, its potential impacts, and proactive steps can help managers smoothly guide their boards through this transition.
By A.J. Jahanian, Esq.
What SB 770 Says
SB 770, effective as of January 1, 2026, updates the Civil Code to promote EV adoption by removing a key insurance mandate. Previously, under Section 4745(f), owners installing an EV charging station in a common area or exclusive use common area had to provide a certificate of insurance naming the association as an additional insured on their liability policy. This ensured the association was directly protected if the charger caused damage, such as a fire or electrical issue affecting shared property.
The new law deletes that “additional insured” requirement. Now, owners must still maintain a liability coverage policy and provide the association with a certificate of insurance within 14 days of approval, plus annually thereafter. However, the policy no longer must explicitly list the association as an additional insured. Importantly, other obligations remain intact. Owners must get association approval, comply with architectural standards, hire licensed contractors, pay for installation and electricity costs, and cover any damage from the charger.
If the station is in a common area (not exclusive use), approval is only granted if installation in the owner’s designated parking space is impossible or unreasonably expensive, and a license agreement is required in that case. Associations can still impose reasonable restrictions that don’t significantly hike costs or reduce efficiency, aligning with the state’s goal to encourage EV use.
Impact on Communities
This shift might seem minor, but it could hit associations where it hurts most these days: their insurance premiums and liability exposure. Without being named as an additional insured, associations lose direct access to the owner’s policy benefits, like defense costs and coverage for claims arising from the charger. If a charger malfunctions—say, causing a garage fire that spreads to common areas—the association might have to rely on its own master policy to cover repairs, potentially leading to higher deductibles, claims history issues, or rate increases.
For managers, this means more potential disputes. Owners may push if associations try to add extra requirements, citing the law’s intent to remove obstacles. On the flip side, boards might worry about uncovered risks, especially in older communities with outdated electrical systems. Insurance carriers could respond by raising premiums for associations with multiple EV chargers, viewing them as higher-risk due to fire hazards or overloads. Broader community dynamics could shift too. With easier approvals (applications deemed approved after 60 days if not denied), more chargers mean more strain on shared power infrastructure. Managers might see increased maintenance calls for tripped breakers or uneven electricity billing. In dense condos or townhomes, this could exacerbate neighbor tensions if one owner’s charger affects others’ parking or safety.
How HOAs Can Plan Proactively
Associations aren’t powerless. Managers can help boards stay ahead by reviewing and updating governing documents and policies now. Start with a board meeting to discuss SB 770 and consult legal counsel to amend rules or CC&Rs if needed. For instance, while you can’t require naming the association as additional insured (that would conflict with the law), you can mandate higher liability limits—say, $1 million—in your approval process, as long as it’s reasonable and not prohibitive.
Next, partner with the association’s insurance broker to assess risks. Request a policy review focused on EV-related coverage gaps and consider adding endorsements for charging station liabilities. Educate owners through newsletters or seminars about safe installations and the importance of robust personal policies. Requiring owners to disclose charger details to the association’s insurer annually also helps track overall risk.
In summary, SB 770 streamlines EV charging to support California’s environmental goals, but it also transfers some risk back to associations. By being proactive—updating policies, bolstering insurance, and educating members—managers and boards can help communities charge forward without getting shocked by unexpected costs.
With eight years of experience in the industry, A.J. Jahanian, Esq. is an attorney at Beaumont Tashjian and a part of the HOA Legal Counsel.
INSURANCE RELIEF AND RECONSTRUCTION RIGHTS
By Sam Roth, Esq.
California’s insurance crisis has left many community associations struggling to find adequate coverage at reasonable rates. In October 2025, Governor Gavin Newsom signed a package of bills aimed at stabilizing the insurance market and protecting property owners.
Two of these laws, Senate Bill 547 and Senate Bill 625, introduce significant changes that managers must understand and communicate to their boards.
Post-Wildfire Insurance Protection
Senate Bill 547 establishes new safeguards for associations facing insurance challenges in wildfire zones. Insurance Code section 675.55 now restricts insurers from terminating or declining to renew commercial property policies when a property sits within a wildfire-impacted area. These restrictions remain in effect for twelve months after the governor declares a state of emergency, ensuring that insurers cannot use proximity to a fire as the sole basis for coverage decisions.
The practical impact for community associations is substantial. Managers can now inform boards that they have a guaranteed twelve-month window following a wildfire emergency declaration. This time can be strategically used for loss prevention investments, fire mitigation documentation, and market exploration with brokers. This regulatory shield against immediate non-renewal allows for thoughtful decision-making rather than crisis-driven choices. Managers should keep in mind, however, that this protection extends only to properties already carrying commercial property insurance at the time the wildfire occurred—it does not create coverage where none existed.
A Game Changer for Multi-Building Associations
The California FAIR Plan’s recent revision delivers the most dramatic impact for multi-building communities. Before these changes, the FAIR Plan imposed a single $20 million limit per location. A multi-building association was therefore forced to divide that amount across all structures, as well as business personal property and other covered components. This made the FAIR Plan unworkable for nearly all associations with multiple buildings.
Under the revised plan, each building can carry up to $20 million in coverage, while the location-wide aggregate cap increases to $100 million. Consider an association consisting of five multi-townhome buildings. Where it once had access to just $20 million total, the association can now obtain $20 million per structure, reaching the $100 million aggregate maximum. By allocating limits per structure rather than per location, the FAIR Plan has multiplied available coverage by five for communities with multiple buildings.
Despite this significant improvement, managers should evaluate whether these new limits meet their association’s needs. Communities with many structures or high reconstruction costs might exceed even the expanded $100 million cap when calculating full replacement value. Additionally, policy declarations must itemize each covered structure individually and specify its associated liability limit. Boards should also note the Three-Year Sunset Clause: Three years after implementation, the FAIR Plan will cease issuing new policies or renewals at these enhanced limits, making early action essential for communities relying on this coverage option.
New Reconstruction Rights After Disasters
Senate Bill 625 addresses another challenge that emerged after recent California wildfires by adding Civil Code section 4752 to the Davis-Stirling Act. Some governing documents contain provisions that effectively prevent homeowners from rebuilding structures to match their pre-disaster condition. These requirements for different architectural styles, materials, or sizes create financial hardship and delay community recovery.
The new law renders provisions in governing documents unenforceable when they effectively prohibit the substantially similar reconstruction of residential structures destroyed or damaged in a disaster, and defines “substantially similar reconstruction” as comparable in architectural style, appearance, materials, and size and square footage to the structure that existed before the disaster.
What does this mean in practice for managers?
Associations can no longer enforce CC&Rs provisions that would require a homeowner rebuilding after a disaster to use different architectural styles, different quality or type of materials, or different square footage than the pre-disaster structure. The law aims to strike a balance between community aesthetics and homeowners’ rights to rebuild without unnecessary red tape.
Importantly, this law does not override local building codes, permit requirements, or modern fire-safe building standards. Associations can and should still ensure that reconstruction complies with current building codes and safety requirements. Instead, the focus shifts from enforcing potentially outdated aesthetic preferences to supporting reasonable reconstruction that maintains community character while respecting the needs of homeowners.
Moving Forward
These legislative and regulatory changes offer qualifying associations meaningful, albeit temporary, relief from California’s insurance crisis. Managers should immediately review existing coverage arrangements and evaluate wildfire exposure across association properties, in consultation with association insurance professionals. For multibuilding communities that are unable to secure adequate traditional coverage, the FAIR Plan’s expanded capacity warrants serious consideration, particularly through consultation with the association’s insurance broker.
However, boards should understand that these emergency measures have expiration dates and limitations built in. The FAIR Plan’s enhanced coverage ends after three years, and the wildfire non-renewal protection lasts only twelve months per emergency declaration. Your role includes helping boards recognize that today’s temporary solutions must be paired with tomorrow’s long term strategies. Sustainable insurance solutions demand active risk reduction efforts, ongoing broker relationships, and regular reassessment of coverage adequacy as market conditions evolve. Partner closely with both insurance specialists and community association attorneys to develop adaptive strategies for California’s volatile insurance environment and ensure your community’s long-term protection.
Additionally, review your CC&Rs and architectural standards for any provisions that might conflict with Civil Code section 4752’s new reconstruction protections—particularly restrictions on architectural style, materials, or square footage that could impede disaster recovery. Proactive document review now can prevent compliance issues and owner conflicts later.
Serving the La Mesa area, Sam Roth, Esq. is an attorney with Kriger & Schuber, APC specializing in Community Association Law with four years of experience in the industry.
AZONE 0
Preparing Community Associations for California’s Ember-Resistant Requirements
By Megan Hall, Esq. and Matthew T. Eisendrath, Esq.
s wildfires become an increasingly larger problem in California, legislators, insurers, firefighting agencies, and homeowners have all sought ways to protect homes from fire. One effective way of doing this is by creating defensible space around structures, i.e., clearing plants and other fuel sources from the immediate areas around structures in order to make them more fire resistant. As the concept has evolved, it has become known as the “ember-resistant zone” or “Zone 0.” In 2020, the legislature passed AB 3074, which required homes within a very high fire hazard zone rating as classified by the State Fire Marshal to maintain an ember-resistant zone of five feet surrounding their property. This law was passed in response to recent increases in California wildfire insurance rates over the last decade, and its purpose is to better defend homes from being destroyed due to wildfires. However, until recently there was no guidance in the form of rules or regulations which would allow implementation and enforcement of the Zone 0 mandate. To expedite the implementation of the ember-resistant zone, Governor Gavin Newsom signed Executive Order N-18-25 in February 2025, requiring the Board of Forestry to complete formal rulemaking language for the ember-resistant zone by December 31, 2025.
As of January 1, 2026, the Board of Forestry has adopted no formal rulemaking language, and Zone 0 remains unenforceable despite the Governor’s Order. With the next committee meeting not scheduled until April 2026, it seems that the law will remain
unenforceable at least until then.
Luckily, despite the official rulemaking language not being implemented yet, guidelines on how to make homes compliant with the ember-resistant zone have already been drafted by CAL FIRE, allowing homeowners to get a head start on ensuring their homes are fire-ready.
Zone 0 Guidance from CAL FIRE
According to the Board of Forestry’s “Fire Safety Zone 0 FAQs” document, the ember-resistant zone, or Zone 0, is the area extending zero to five feet from buildings, structures, decks, etc. The emberresistant zone applies to all structures attached to the home, including patios and decks. Zone 0 requirements apply to all areas identified as State Responsibility Areas and “very high” fire hazard severity zones of Local Responsibility Areas. You can find maps detailing which responsibility area your household falls under on the Office of the Fire Marshal website: https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/what-wedo/community-wildfire-preparedness-and-mitigation/fire-hazardseverity-zones
Within the new ember-resistant zone, homes will be required to use pavers, concrete, or other hardscape materials instead of combustible mulch or other flammable materials. Any surrounding structures or wooden materials around the home, such as a fence, will have to be replaced with fire-resistant materials to prevent the spread of fire to the household. Other recommendations (which are expected to be incorporated in the new rules) include: clearing weeds, debris, and
dead grass; minimizing combustible furniture, and other materials, vehicles, etc.; moving garbage and recycle containers out of the Zone 0 area; and moving wood, lumber, and other combustible materials out of the Zone 0 area to Zone 2 (30 to 100 feet from the structure).
Trees are expected to be permitted within Zone 0, provided they are maintained, and their lower branches are pruned to prevent fire from climbing into the tree’s canopy. Branches must remain at least five feet away from the roof or walls of any structure, and no branch can be within 10 feet of chimneys or stovepipes.
According to the research conducted by the Office of the State Fire Marshal (OSFM) and the Insurance Institute for Business & Home Safety (IBHS), taking these precautions greatly reduces the risk of ignition of a home’s exterior walls, eaves, and gutters, which are hot spots for embers to ignite households. Taking these steps, along with staying compliant with the previously implemented Zone 1 and Zone 2 regulations, is expected to reduce property damage resulting from California wildfires.
Once the formal regulations for Zone 0 are adopted, all new construction in California’s State Responsibility Area will be required to comply with the new standard immediately. Existing structures are expected to be compliant within three years of the standards’ adoption.
Inspections
Inspections for Zone 0 compliance must be done whenever a property is transferred from one owner to another through an “AB 38” form (disclosure required for sales in high fire severity zones). Depending on local requirements, inspections are scheduled to start for new buildings starting sometime in 2026. Inspections for existing homes will start three years from when the new building inspections have begun. It is not clear yet how enforcement will be implemented, however for associations it is best to prepare for compliance based on the guidelines as it may save your membership money or possibly their homes in the future. For reference, the current fee for an initial Defensible-Space Inspection in El Dorado County is $205 and the current initial inspection fee Los Angeles County is $151, and, if the home is still non-compliant after a second inspection, a $500 administrative fee and a $990.00 abatement enforcement fee can be imposed.
Information related to requesting an inspection can be found on the CAL FIRE website, along with links to county-specific resources: https://www.fire. ca.gov/dspace.
Tips
To prepare for the implementation of the Zone 0 requirements on existing structures in approximately three[RG1] years, associations will need to look to association-owned structures, whether the residential structures, clubhouse, etc., and analyze the estimated costs for Zone 0 compliance and whether adjustments to assessments will be needed to cover the costs. One cost to consider is replacing fencing or gates that touch a structure to non-combustible materials for the first five feet.
If an association is considering any construction on existing structures, the board must be aware of these requirements and ensure that any plans comply with the defensible space requirements.
Additionally, although inspections of separate interest single family homes are typically not association responsibility, associations should seek legal counsel to see whether it is best to incorporate this requirement into any escrow procedures to help ensure compliance and safety within the development.
ZONE 0 MAY NOT YET BE ENFORCEABLE, BUT ASSOCIATIONS THAT WAIT TO PREPARE RISK HIGHER COSTS, FINES, AND INCREASED WILDFIRE EXPOSURE.
With seven years of experience combined, Megan Hall, Esq. and Matthew T. Eisendrath, Esq. are attorneys with Adams Stirling PLC serving both the Stockton and San Diego area.
When Neighbor Disputes Turn
Violent What Woolard Means for Community Managers
By Daniel C. Heaton, Esq.
Community managers are often the first call when neighbor conflicts escalate. A noise complaint turns personal. Harassment allegations multiply. Emails arrive, warning that something bad is coming. And then, sometimes, something does.
When those situations later end up in court, the association and its managing agent may be pulled in as defendants, accused of not doing enough, not acting fast enough, or not stepping in at all. The California Court of Appeal’s recent decision in Woolard v. Regent Real Estate Services, Inc. squarely addresses those expectations and, in doing so, draws an important and much-needed boundary around the role of associations and managers.
For community managers, Woolard is a practical reminder of what your job is and, perhaps even more important, what it is not.
THE CASE: A TRAGEDY AND A LAWSUIT LOOKING FOR A REFEREE
The dispute in Woolard began as a long-running conflict between neighboring residents in a condominium community. The plaintiffs were tenants, not owners, who claimed they had endured months of harassment by their neighbors. Despite repeated complaints to the Association and its management company, the situation ultimately escalated into a violent physical altercation that resulted in serious injuries.
After being sued by the neighboring residents involved in the altercation, the tenants filed a cross-complaint against the Association and its management company. They claimed the Association ignored months of harassment, knew that tensions were escalating, and should have intervened to
prevent the dispute from turning violent.
Both the trial court and Court of Appeal ultimately rejected that argument in favor of the Association and management.
The central holding of Woolard is blunt: community associations and their managing agents do not have a legal duty to mediate, investigate, or intervene in neighbor-to-neighbor disputes simply because those disputes might escalate. The Court found that imposing such a duty would leave associations liable for the outcome of disputes without the tools to prevent them. In doing so, it emphasized several key points that directly matter to community managers:
• Foreseeability alone is not enough.
Even if an altercation could be described as foreseeable in hindsight, that does not create a legal duty for an association or manager to step into a personal dispute between residents.
• Associations are not law enforcement or security providers.
The Court rejected the idea that associations should be expected (or legally obligated) to deescalate conflicts, intervene in all harassment claims, or prevent criminal conduct between neighbors.
• The governing documents define the scope of responsibility.
Instead, an association’s obligation is to enforce its CC&Rs and operational rules when violations exist, not to resolve interpersonal disputes that fall outside of those authoritative provisions.
Like the association did in the Woolard case, associations should reasonably investigate complaints about governing document violations and respond accordingly.
The Woolard court declined to recognize a new duty of care that would require community associations to address or prevent violent disputes outside the scope of the governing documents. For community managers, this distinction is critical as it reinforces that responding appropriately to complaints does not mean assuming responsibility for outcomes you cannot control, or that are not within the scope of the association’s enforcement authority.
TENANT STATUS MATTERS
Another significant aspect of Woolard was the plaintiffs’ status as tenants rather than homeowners. The Court reiterated that tenants do not have the same rights as members of the association and lack standing to compel enforcement of governing documents.
This does not mean tenant complaints should be ignored. Managers should still document complaints, respond where appropriate and do so professionally, and evaluate whether any reported conduct implicates the governing documents or fair housing regulations. But Woolard confirms that an association’s legal obligations to tenants are more limited than its duties to homeowner members.
That distinction often gets blurred in practice, particularly in mixed-use or heavily rented communities. Woolard provides managers with solid legal footing to explain why certain demands for action fall outside the association’s obligations to non-members.
DISCRIMINATION CLAIMS ARE DIFFERENT, AND REQUIRE HEIGHTENED CARE
The plaintiffs also attempted to frame their grievances as discrimination under applicable fair housing regulations, pointing to violation letters
(WOOLARD V. REGENT REAL ESTATE SERVICES, INC. (2024) 107
Community associations and their managing agents are not required to mediate or prevent neighbor disputes simply because those disputes might escalate.
that they had received which warned about children playing in common area driveways. The Court ultimately rejected those claims because plaintiffs failed to properly plead a cause of action for housing discrimination and, even if they had properly pled it, they failed to offer admissible evidence of such discrimination
For managers, the takeaway is not that discrimination claims are unlikely to succeed, but that they must be handled deliberately and carefully. Communications involving families, children, or other protected classes should be reviewed with counsel and framed in a manner that is consistent, neutral, and focused on legitimate enforcement purposes.
There is currently an ongoing, highly publicized lawsuit in Las Vegas involving a widow that is suing her association after a neighbor allegedly shot and killed her husband. She claims the association failed to intervene or adequately address known escalating tensions between the neighbors.
Sound familiar? Whether those claims ultimately succeed under Nevada law remains to be seen, but the lawsuit itself reflects a similar pattern: when violence occurs, association and managers may be pulled into litigation simply because they were aware of prior conflict.
Woolard matters because it pushes back against that exact impulse. Now, the controlling law in California is that mere awareness of tension, complaints, or even hostility between residents does not convert an association or manager into a guarantor of personal safety. Absent an enforceable violation of the governing documents or actionable housing discrimination, California associations
are not legally required to insert themselves into personal disputes. Managers are not required to expand their role to become mediators, security officers, or community referees for conduct they cannot control and have no power to regulate.
PRACTICAL GUIDANCE FOR COMMUNITY MANAGERS
Woolard does not give associations a license to ignore complaints. It does, however, reinforce best practices that managers should already be following:
• Document, but do not adjudicate.
Acknowledge complaints, keep records, and evaluate whether any governing document violations exist. Avoid inserting the association into personal conflicts.
• Enforce consistently.
If conduct violates the CC&Rs or rules, follow established enforcement procedures. If no violation exists, explain it clearly and professionally.
• Know when to redirect.
Harassment, threats, and criminal behavior are matters for law enforcement or the courts, not the board or management.
• Escalate discrimination issues to counsel early. Even weak claims may implicate fair housing issues should be evaluated promptly by legal counsel to ensure communications and enforcement actions are defensible.
• Set expectations.
Boards and managers should educate residents that the association is not law enforcement or mediator or referee for personal disputes.
THE BOTTOM LINE
The Court of Appeal in Woolard closed its opinion with an observation that should resonate with every community manager: imposing a duty on associations to intervene in neighbor disputes would leave them liable for outcomes without giving them the tools to prevent those outcomes.
Woolard restores a measure of common sense to an area of law that too often expands by tragedy. It provides clarity, protection, and a reminder that effective community management requires boundaries as much as responsiveness. For community managers, the practical takeaways are simple: respond, document, and enforce when appropriate, and never assume responsibility for conduct the association has no authority or duty to control.
Daniel C. Heaton, Esq. is a Senior Attorney at DeNichilo Law, APC, serving as corporate and litigation counsel for community associations throughout California.
WOODBRIDGE AND BIRD ROCK Two 2025 Cases with Major Association Implications
A number of California court cases were decided in 2025 that managers and their boards should be aware of. Among these cases are 11640 Woodbridge Condominium Homeowners’ Assn. v. Farmers Ins. Exchange (“Woodbridge”) and Bird Rock Home Mortgage, LLC v. Breaking Ground, LP (“Bird Rock”).
By Karyn A. Larko, Esq.
WOODBRIDGE
In Woodbridge, the association hired a contractor to replace the complex’s roof. While approximately 80% of the roof membrane was removed, a rainstorm hit, damaging the exposed insulation and plywood, and allowing water to enter some of the units. The roofer subsequently removed and replaced the damaged insulation and plywood, added a layer of base paper and base felt, and hot mopped and tarred most of the roof. The roofer also covered the roof with tarps in anticipation of another rainstorm. The second rainstorm dislodged the tarps and rainwater penetrated the exposed felt layer and entered all of the units.
The Association had an “all risks” policy with Farmers Insurance Exchange (“Farmers”). The association tendered a claim to Farmers for both the water damage to the units and the roofing work after the first storm and again after the second storm.
Farmers hired an expert to inspect the roof. The expert opined that the tarps that had been used were too small and that the roofer violated industry standards by removing 80% of the roof at once.
Farmers denied the Association’s claims, citing the “water damage” and “faulty workmanship” exclusions contained in the policy.
The Association sued Farmers for breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing (i.e., for the bad faith denial of the claim). The Association also sued the contractor.
The Superior Court granted summary judgment in favor of Farmers (i.e., the court ruled in favor of Farmers based on motion papers, before the trial), concluding that the Association’s losses were not covered under the policy because of the water damage and faulty workmanship exclusions contained therein. The Association appealed the court’s decision.
The California Court of Appeal (“Court”) reviewed the case and reversed the ruling on the summary judgment motion.
The Court held there was always a roof on the building because “roof” was not a defined term in the policy and only certain layers of roofing material had been removed when the damage occurred; so the rain damage was covered. Accordingly, the water exclusion did not bar coverage.
As to the “faulty workmanship” exclusion, the Court found the term to be ambiguous because it could refer to faulty or negligent work and/or a faulty or negligent process. Accordingly, the Court found that coverage was not unambiguously excluded and, therefore, there were triable issues of material fact.
Because the Court found that there was a reasonable interpretation of the policy language under which the Association had coverage, the Court reversed the summary judgment ruling and sent the case back to the original trial judge so that a full trial could be conducted.
Prior to Woodbridge, there has only been one “all-risk” insurance case decided in California arising out of damage during roof repairs (Diep v. California Fair Plan Assn.). In the Diep case, the insurance company prevailed on summary judgment. The Court looked at the Diep case, but also looked to other states’ decisions on all-risk insurance coverage. Ultimately, the Court decided to follow cases from New York, New Jersey and Oregon.
This case is under review by the California Supreme Court, so the outcome of this case could change.
WHAT ARE THE KEY TAKEAWAYS FROM THIS CASE?
You should tender insurance claims early and often as it is not always easy to tell whether there might be coverage. Boards should also hire qualified experts to advise them on matters that are of great importance to their associations, including experts on evaluating denied insurance claims.
BIRD ROCK
In Bird Rock, homeowners defaulted on payment of their assessments, leading the Association’s trustee to record a lien and initiate a foreclosure sale under the Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act and the association’s CC&Rs. At the initial trustee’s sale, Bird Rock Home Mortgage, LLC (“BRHM”) submitted the highest bid and tendered payment. However, the trustee kept the bidding open after the sale pursuant to Civil Code section 2924m, which extends the bidding period for up to 45 days for certain residential foreclosure sales to allow “eligible bidders” to match or exceed the highest bid. During this extended period, Breaking Ground, LP (“BGLP”) (an eligible bidder through its nonprofit partner) submitted a larger bid and received the trustee’s deed.
BRHM sued, arguing that Civil Code section 2924m does not apply to association lien foreclosures because such liens are not “mortgages” or “deeds of trust” under the statute.
The trial court ruled against BRHM and BRHM appealed.
The California Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s holding, finding that the Association’s CC&Rs, which created a contractual lien for unpaid assessments enforceable via nonjudicial foreclosure under Civil Code section 2924 et seq., met the statutory definition of a “mortgage” as a security interest in property for performance of an obligation (e.g., the payment of assessments), regardless of whether such liens constitute traditional home loans.
WHAT ARE THE KEY TAKEAWAYS FROM THIS CASE?
Assessment liens can be treated as mortgages for foreclosure purposes if the CC&Rs grant the association the power to lien for unpaid assessments and the power to sell the separate interest to enforce the lien. Winning bids at association foreclosure sales may not be final for up to 45 days. The commencement of the 90-day redemption period will be delayed if the bidding period is extended. The initial high bid may not determine the final sale proceeds if the bidding period is extended.
PRACTICE TIPS
• Obtain and keep a complete copy of your associations’ insurance policies, including any exclusions and riders so they are readily available for review.
• When tendering a claim, be sure to comply with all requirements imposed under the policy for tendering claims. Tender the claim in writing and retain a copy for the association’s records.
• Because the laws pertaining to assessment collection are continually evolving and the potential liability for violating these laws can be significant, boards should not attempt to perform any assessment collection activities themselves beyond conducting the votes needed to lien and foreclose against delinquent properties.
With 17 years of experience, Karyn A. Larko, Esq. Is the Shareholder and Co-chair of the Transactional Department for Epsten, APC in San Diego California specializing in Community Association Counsel.
RIDLEY V. RANCHO PALMA GRANDE HOA AND COASTAL PROTECTIONS IN CASA MIRA HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION
THE COST OF INACTION AND BAD FAITH
By Stephen Levine, Esq.
For California community associations, the “Rule of Judicial Deference” is a vital shield that protects discretionary board decisions. However, the recent decision in Ridley v. Rancho Palma Grande Homeowners Association serves as a stark warning: this shield is not absolute and cannot be used to justify bad faith or gross negligence.
Case Overview: A 19-Month Delay
In 2018, tenants of a condominium owned by Doug Ridley and Sherry Shen in Santa Clara reported flooding in their common area crawlspace that the Association had a duty under the CC&Rs to maintain and repair. Despite multiple consultants and City agencies suggesting an abandoned wellhead was the likely source of the water intrusion, the Association Board repeatedly ignored expert recommendations and rejected investigative proposals for over 19 months, ultimately failing to remediate the source of the water and related damage. Instead, the Association incorrectly attributed the issue to a “high groundwater table” and delayed repairs, leading to mold, termite infestations, and a unit that was ultimately rendered uninhabitable.
The source, an abandoned wellhead, was confirmed after a sinkhole appeared and the Association was ordered by the City to repair it. The unit owners sued for breach of CC&Rs, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of the Davis-Stirling Act, negligence, and nuisance. The owners later added allegations of fraud and added the Association’s Board President as a defendant.
Why the Association Lost
A 67-day bench trial ensued over a nearly threeyear period resulting in a decision in favor of the owners on all claims, awarding them damages for restoration, lost rent, and emotional distress, and issuing an injunction requiring the Association to complete specified repairs and to compensate the owners until the work was finished. The court found that the Association’s delay, deception, and failure to act constituted a breach of its duties under the CC&Rs. The court also found the Association’s conduct grossly negligent and awarded punitive damages accordingly. Notably, many of the wrongful acts and omissions attributed to the Association arose from imputed conduct by its attorneys in the case. For instance, it was revealed at trial that shortly after the water was discovered in the crawlspace, the Association had access to maps and records from the Water District showing the possible presence of the abandoned well, but failed to disclose this information to contractors and City officials. Counsel and the defendant director withheld this information from opposing counsel, Santa Clara officials, and their own experts
The trial court, and subsequently the appellate court, rejected the Association’s defense under the Business Judgment Rule and the Rule of Judicial Deference as it determined the Association acted unreasonably and in bad faith. The court specifically found the Association liable based on three critical failures:
1. Lack of Reasonable Investigation
Deference is only granted when a board acts following a “reasonable investigation.” By ignoring expert recommendations and maps from the Water District that showed the well, the Board forfeited this protection.
2. Bad Faith Conduct
The Association president told the court he believed the likely source of the water in the crawlspace was “a high groundwater table,” rather than an abandoned well. This was despite having been told by the City, the Water District, and the Association’s own consultants that a well was the probable source. At trial, the Association’s Board President admitted to knowingly providing false information to attorneys, consultants, and the court regarding the well and the habitability of the unit. The court also concluded the Association acted in
bad faith by disseminating false information to its membership, to the court, and to workers who would have been endangered if the crawlspace soil had collapsed or the well cap had been inadvertently removed.
3. Gross Negligence
The Association’s failure to address the well issue promptly, its disregard for expert advice, and deception and misrepresentation those acting on its behalf was an extreme departure from the ordinary standard of care.
The Result
The consequences of these failures were severe. The court awarded the homeowners:
• $1.8 million in total damages (restoration, lost rent, and emotional distress) including $275,000 in punitive damages (against both the Association and the Association’s President personally) finding the defendants’ behavior “despicable; and
• $6 million in attorney’s fees.
Key Takeaways for Community Managers
1. Non-Delegable Duty to Repair Associations have a mandatory duty to investigate and repair common area conditions in accordance with its statutory and governing document obligations.
2. Promptness is Mandatory
Delaying investigation of water intrusion or mold significantly increases the risk of significant damages and “gross negligence” findings.
3. Transparency with Experts Boards must provide contractors and consultants with accurate, complete records (maps, previous reports, etc.) to ensure their advice is based on accurate data.
4. Individual Liability
Bad faith and “despicable” conduct can bypass the exculpation clauses in CC&Rs, leaving Board members personally exposed to punitive damages.
In conclusion, board inaction, misrepresentation, or concealment can expose associations not only to breach of CC&R claims, but also to significant liability for fraud and even elder abuse.
COURTS WILL NOT DEFER TO BOARDS THAT IGNORE EXPERT ADVICE, DELAY REPAIRS, OR MISREPRESENT FACTS.
Law Firm in Irvine has 25 years of experience in Community Association and Real Estate Law.
Casa Mira Homeowners Association v. California Coastal Commission (2024) 107 Cal App.5th 370 is a significant case concerning protection of property along the coast. The core dispute in this case was whether the Association’s condominiums built in 1984 qualified as “existing structures” under Public Resource Code section 30235 (California Coastal Act), which allows the installation of seawalls to protect pre-Act development.
The Coastal Act of 1976 was enacted on January 1, 1977. The purpose of the Act is to “[p]rotect, maintain, and, where feasible, enhance and restore the overall quality of the coastal zone environment and natural and artificial resources.” The Association applied for a permit to build a 257-foot wall to protect the 1984 condominiums and a small apartment building built in 1972. The Coastal Commission denied the permit to the extent it included a seawall to protect the Association property because the community was developed after the enactment of the Act, while the Commission did approve a 50-foot seawall to protect the apartment building that was developed prior to the enactment of the Act.
The Court of Appeal upheld the Coastal Commission’s denial of the seawall permit, ruling that “existing structures” in the Act refers only to structures built before the 1977 Act, meaning newer developments like the Association’s 1984 condominiums are not automatically entitled to shoreline armoring. This decision sets a precedent that limits seawall construction for post-Costal Act development, prioritizing beach preservation over private property protection.
Impact of the Ruling: The ruling reinforces the Coastal Commission’s stance against new armoring. It clarifies that homeowners cannot automatically build seawalls to protect newer developments, a public policy decision that favors maintaining public beaches over private property fortification.
What SB 410 Means for Condominium associations BALCONY BILL 2.0
If you aren’t tired of hearing about the “balcony bill”, that makes one of us. Since the adoption of Senate Bill 326 (“SB 326”) in 2019, those working with condominium associations have been dealing with its requirements, costs, and confusion ever since. The 2025 legislative session brought even more legislation related to the infamous SB 326, in the form of Senate Bill 410 (“SB 410”), and there is likely more to come.
By Megan Hall, Esq.
KEY CHANGES
With SB 410, the legislature finally clarified that the requirements of SB 326 apply only to condominium developments containing three or more attached multifamily dwellings. Further, one of the requirements of SB 326 was the issuance of a report by the inspector of the findings of the inspection of exterior elevated elements (“EEE”). (See, Civ. Code § 5551(e)). SB 410 amends the Civil Code to require certain information previously contained within the body of report to be addressed on the first page as well. The first page of the report must now contain: 1) date of inspection, 2) total number of units, 3) total number of units with exterior elevated elements, 4) total number of exterior elevated elements inspected, 5) total number of exterior elevated elements that pose a safety threat and the number of impacted units, and 6) inspector certification. While this requirement is the responsibility of the individual preparing the report, associations should ensure reports being provided are compliant.
Next, SB 326 reports are now considered association business records and are therefore subject to member inspection pursuant to Civil Code section 5200. Associations must maintain reports for two inspection cycles. An inspection cycle is nine years, meaning associations must maintain these reports for eighteen years each for member review.
Arguably, one of the most significant changes is that SB 410 requires sellers to disclose the association’s most recent EEE report to prospective purchasers. Reminder: Update the annual Civil Code section 4528 disclosure form to account for providing this report. This form outlines the costs to provide required documents to prospective purchasers.
LENDABILITY QUESTIONS
With SB 410, the legislature aimed to increase transparency and safety for buyers and residents following the fatal Berkeley balcony collapse, and organizations like the California Association of Real Estate supported this bill. The engineers drafting the SB 326 reports opposed the bill unless their entire report is disclosed. One of the concerns with providing less than the full report is that allegations may arise that the association produced portions that didn’t tell the whole story or avoided issues.
The bill author’s comments related to SB 410 noted that many lenders, including Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are requiring compliance with SB 326 inspection requirements, as well as repairs as a condition of lending. As SB 326 did not address providing the reports, some associations would not provide such reports to prospective purchasers, which, according to the author of SB 410, led to the stalling of many real estate transactions.
As most of us have experienced in the wake of the Surfside condominium collapse and subsequent changes to the lender questionnaires related to maintenance, SB 410’s disclosure requirements appear to be spurred by lenders concerned about liability due to deferred maintenance. The issue for associations is that these changes leave them in a catch-22.
CONCERNS FOR ASSOCIATIONS
The failure of real estate transactions has been attributed to the failure to provide the inspection reports, according to the author of AB 410. However, most of those who have experienced the backlash from the changes made to lender questionnaires in the wake of the Surfside condominium collapse can attest to the opposite experience (i.e., the disclosure of information requested is the basis for denial). Hopefully, the provision of the full report will not have such a chilling effect on sales.
Associations may need to prepare for an increase in claims from owners related to interference with loans, sales, etc., where the reports indicate non-urgent repairs for which the association may not have adequate funding to address currently, which lenders demand be addressed.
CONCLUSION
If you need more information about these bills and how they affect your community, please contact your association’s legal counsel for assistance.
SB 410 adds new disclosure and record-retention requirements that condominium associations must incorporate into their inspection and sales processes .
Megan Hall, Esq. Is an attorney with Adams Stirling PLC serving the Stockton area for six years.
2025-2026 LEGAL DIRECTORY
ASSESSMENT COLLECTION SERVICES
ALLIED TRUSTEE SERVICES
Assessment Collections
Stefan Murphy
Serving All of California for Over 30 Years 1601 Response Rd., Ste. 390 Sacramento, CA 95815 (800) 220-5454 smurphy@alliedtrustee.com www.alliedtrustee.com
ALTERRA ASSESSMENT RECOVERY
Assessment Collection Services
Steven J. Tinnelly Esq., President Advanced, Efficient, Effective HOA Assessment Recovery 27101 Puerta Real, Ste. 250 Mission Viejo, CA 92691 (888) 818-5949 ramona@tinnellylaw.com www.alterracollections.com
AXELA TECHNOLOGIES
Ethical HOA Collections Technology
Martin Urruela, Chief Executive Officer A Better Way to Collect 7215 NE 4th Ave., Unit 101 Miami, FL 33138 (305) 392-0389 info@axela-tech.com www.axela.com
COMMUNITY LEGAL ADVISORS, INC.
General Counsel & Assessment Collections
Mark Guithues, Esq., Laurie Masotto, Esq., Jeffrey Speights, Esq., Jay J. Brown, Esq.
Inland Empire, Orange County, San Diego County 509 N. Coast Hwy. Oceanside, CA 92054 (760) 529-5211 • Fax (760) 453-2194 mark@attorneyforhoa.com www.attorneyforhoa.com
FELDSOTT, LEE & NICHTER, ATTORNEYS AT LAW
General Counsel, Community Association Law
Stanley Feldsott, Martin Lee, and Austin Nichter
Laguna Hills, California 23161 Mill Creek Dr., Ste. 300 Laguna Hills, CA 92653 (949) 729-8002 • Fax (949) 729-8012 feldsott@gmail.com www.cahoalaw.com
THE JUDGE LAW FIRM
HOA Law, General Counsel, Assessment Collections Services
James Judge, Esq.
Providing General Counsel & Collection Services Throughout CA for Over 20 Years 9245 Laguna Springs Dr., Ste. 200 Elk Grove, CA 95758 (949) 833-8633 • Fax (949) 833-0154 info@thejudgefirm.com www.thejudgefirm.com
UNITED TRUSTEE SERVICES
Trusted Partners in Assessment Collections
Lisa E. Chapman
HOA Assessment Collection Services 696 San Ramon Valley Blvd., Ste. 353 Danville, CA 94526 (925) 855-8554 • Fax (925) 855-8559 lisa@unitedtrusteeservices.com www.unitedtrusteeservices.com
WITKIN & NEAL, INC.
Assessment Collection Services
Susan Paquette, Esq. Assessment Collections Made Simple 5805 Sepulveda Blvd., Ste. 670 Sherman Oaks, CA 91411 (818) 845-8808 • Fax (818) 845-8844 susanp@witkinandneal.com www.witkinandneal.com
ATTORNEYS
ADAMS | STIRLING PLC
Community Association Law, General Counsel
Adrian Adams, Esq & Laurie S. Poole, Esq. California’s Premier Law Firm Dedicated to Residential & Commercial Associations 2566 Overland Ave., Ste. 730 Los Angeles, CA 90064 (800) 464-2817 info@adamsstirling.com www.adamsstirling.com
BERDING | WEIL
Construction Defect Attorneys
Serving All of California and Hawaii Offices in Walnut Creek, San Diego, Orange County, Los Angeles, Sacramento & Hawaii Walnut Creek, CA 94596 (662) 832-3030
spowell@berdingweil.com www.berding-weil.com
BRISCOE IVESTER & BAZEL LLP
Corporate Counsel and Enforcement Litigator
Maria C. Kao, Esq. All of California 235 Montgomery St., Ste. 935 San Francisco, CA 94104 (415) 402-2712
mkao@briscoelaw.net www.briscoelaw.ne/
COMMUNITY LEGAL ADVISORS, INC.
General Counsel & Assessment Collections
Mark Guithues, Esq., Laurie Masotto, Esq., Jeffrey Speights, Esq., Jay J. Brown, Esq. Inland Empire, Orange County, San Diego County 509 N. Coast Hwy. Oceanside, CA 92054 (760) 529-5211 • Fax (760) 453-2194 mark@attorneyforhoa.com www.attorneyforhoa.com
DELPHI LAW GROUP, LLP
Community Association Law
Christina Baine DeJardin, James McCormick, Jr., Kyle Lakin, Zachary Smith Carlsbad & Indian Wells CA 5868 Owens Ave., Ste. 200 Carlsbad, CA 92008 (844) 433-5744 • Fax (760) 820-2696 info@delphillp.com www.delphillp.com
EPSTEN, APC
Association Counsel, Civil Litigation, Construction Defect Litigation
Jon Epsten, Esq. & Susan Hawks McClintic, Esq. San Diego | Coachella Valley | Inland Empire 3111 Camino del Rio North, Ste. 560 San Diego, CA 92108 (858) 527-0111 • Fax (858) 527-1531 info@epsten.com www.epsten.com
FIORE RACOBS & POWERS, A PLC
Community Association Law and Assessment Collections
Jacqueline D. Foster, Esq., Peter E. Racobs, Esq., and John R. MacDowell, Esq. The Recognized Authority in Community Association Law
Orange County | Inland Empire | Coachella Valley l San Diego County (877) 31-FIORE • Fax (949) 727-3311 dweissberg@fiorelaw.com www.fiorelaw.com
GURALNICK, GILLILAND & GARCIA
Association Law, Assessment Collections, General Counsel
Wayne S. Guralnick, Robert J. Gilliland Jr., Ryan Garcia Serving Community Associations for Over 30 Years 36-917 Cook St., Ste. 102 Palm Desert, CA 92211 (760) 340-1515 • Fax (760) 568-3053 wayneg@gghoalaw.com www.gghoalaw.com
HICKEY & ASSOCIATES, P.C. Community Association Law
David E. Hickey, Esq. 27261 Las Ramblas, Ste. 120 Mission Viejo, CA 92691 (949) 614-1550 • Fax (949) 748-3990 dhickey@hickeyassociates.net www.hickeyassociates.net
HUGHES GILL COCHRANE TINETTI, PC Community Association & Construction Defect Law
John P. Gill, Esq. l Amy K. Tinetti, Esq. 1350 Treat Blvd., Ste. 550 Walnut Creek, CA 94597 (925) 926-1200 • Fax (925) 926-1202 atinetti@hughes-gill.com www.hughes-gill.com
THE JUDGE LAW FIRM
HOA Law, General Counsel, Assessment Collection Services
James Judge, Esq. I Terry Dall, Esq. I Stephen M. Levine, Esq.
Providing General Counsel & Collection Services Throughout CA for Over 20 Years
300 Spectrum Center Dr., Ste. 100 Irvine, CA 92618 (949) 833-8633 • Fax (949) 833-0154 info@thejudgefirm.com www.thejudgefirm.com
Continues on page 20
Continued from page 19
LOEWENTHAL, HILLSHAFER & CARTER, LLP
Community Association Law I
Construction Defect Litigation
David A. Loewenthal I Robert P. Hillshafer
Los Angeles, Ventura & Surrounding Counties 5700 Canoga Ave., Ste. 160 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 (866) 474-5529 Fax (818) 905-6372 info@lhclawyers.net www.lhclawyers.net
MCGLINCHEY STAFFORD
Community Association Law & Litigation, Arbitration-Mediation, HOA Expert
Michelle M. McCliman Irvine, CA
2050 Main St., Ste. 550 Irvine, CA 92614 (949) 381-5924
mmccliman@mcglinchey.com www.mcglinchey.com
PRATT & ASSOCIATES, APC
Community Association Law
Sharon Glenn Pratt Los Gatos, CA 634 North Santa Cruz Ave, Ste. 204 Los Gatos, CA 95030 (408) 369-0800 Fax (408) 369-0752 spratt@prattattorneys.com www.prattattorneys.com
RAGGHIANTI FREITAS LLP
General Counsel and Mediation
David F. Feingold, Esq. Serving Bay Area Communities Since 1986 1101 Fifth Ave., Ste. 100 San Rafael, CA 94901 (415) 999-7635 dfeingold@rflawllp.com www.rflawllp.com
RICHARDSON | OBER LLP
Community Association Law, Assessment Collection
Kelly G. Richardson | Matt D. Ober Throughout California (877) 446-2529 info@roattorneys.com www.roattorneys.com
SWEDELSONGOTTLIEB
Community Association Law, Construction Defect, Assessment Collection
David C. Swedelson, Esq., Sandra L. Gottlieb, Esq., Cyrus Koochek, Esq. Los Angeles | Orange County | Palm Desert | San Francisco l Ventura 11900 W. Olympic Blvd., Ste. 580 Los Angeles, CA 90064 (800) 372-2207 Fax (310) 207-2115
slg@sghoalaw.com www.lawforhoas.com
TINNELLY LAW GROUP
Community Association Law
Steven J. Tinnelly, Managing Partner & Richard A. Tinnelly, Senior Partner Orange County | Los Angeles | San Diego | Coachella Valley | Northern CA 27101 Puerta Real, Ste. 250 Mission Viejo, CA 92691 (949) 588-0866
ramona@tinnellylaw.com www.tinnellylaw.com
WOLF, RIFKIN, SHAPIRO, SCHULMAN & RABKIN, LLP
Community Association Law
Michael W. Rabkin, Esq. 11400 W. Olympic Blvd., 9th Fl. Los Angeles, CA 90064 (310) 744-4100 Fax (310) 479-1422 mrabkin@wrslawyers.com www.wrslawyers.com
ZIMMERMAN PAVONE LLP
Community Association Law, General Counsel and Litigation
Barbara Zimmerman and Daniella Pavone Providing Legal Services to the Bay Area for Over 20 Years 6010 Commerce Blvd., Ste. 148 Rohnert Park, CA 94928 (707) 578-7555 info@zp-law.net zp-law.net
CONSTRUCTION DEFECT ANALYSIS
BERDING | WEIL
Construction Defect Attorneys Serving All of California and Hawaii Offices in Walnut Creek, San Diego, Orange County, Los Angeles, Sacramento & Hawaii Walnut Creek, CA 94596 (662) 832-3030
spowell@berdingweil.com www.berding-weil.com
FENTON GRANT KANEDA & LITT, LLP
Construction Defect Litigation & CID Education
Charles R. Fenton, Esq. & Joseph Kaneda, Esq. Servicing California & Nevada Communities for Over 25 Years 2030 Main Street, Ste. 550 Irvine, CA 92614 (949) 435-3800 Fax (949) 435-3801 cfenton@fentongrant.com www.fentongrant.com
HENNIGH LAW CORPORATION
Construction Defect Litigators & Trial Attorneys
Aaron Ehrlich, Esq., Scott Hennigh, Esq., Garrett Mott, Esq.
Winning the Highest Stakes Defect Claims Across California 700 Flower St., Ste. 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90017 (213) 277-7226
The Authority in California Construction Defect Claims for 40 Years 19 Corporate Plaza Dr. Newport Beach, CA, 92660 (800) 403-3332 • Fax (929) 442-0646
Los Angeles, Orange County, San Diego, Inland Empire, Coachella Valley, California Statewide 10890 Thornmint Rd. Ste. 200 San Diego, CA 92127 (619) 980-3281 elaine@naumannlegal.com www.naumannlegal.com
RILEY I PASEK I CANTY I SELTZER LLP
Construction Defect Resolution & Construction Defect Analysis Attorneys
Rick Riley, Melissa Pasek, Kevin Canty, Joe Seltzer Danville, Irvine, San Diego, Temecula, Woodland Hills & Throughout California 780 San Ramon Valley Blvd. Danville, CA 94526 (844) 775-5000
We Make Association Voting Management Easy 1900 Camden Ave. San Jose, CA 95124 (408) 482-9659
deanna@hoaelection.com www.hoaelection.com
PRO ELECTIONS LLC
Electronic Voting, Paper Ballot Voting & Hybrid Voting Options
Abigail Padou
We’ll Run HOA Elections That Comply with the Law 635 Bret Harte Dr. Murphys, CA 95247 (209) 559-1448 info@pro-ei.com www.pro-ei.com
RESERVE STUDY FIRMS
ASSOCIATION RESERVES
Reserve Studies
Paige Schauermann Rely on the Experts to Budget Responsibly with a Reserve Study 2945 Townsgate Rd., Ste. 200 Westlake Village, CA 91361 (800) 733-1365
Serving All of California 6101 Bollinger Canyon Rd., Ste. 200 San Ramon, CA 94583 (925) 355-2100 • Fax (925) 355-9600 reservestudies@helsing.com www.helsing.com
