Sunday, May 20, 2007



Massive injustice by way of confusion and corruption await all owners, Senate Bill 528 is just what the industry ordered

by D. Vanitzian, JD., Arbitrator

May 20, 2007

So THIS is what the California Senate calls an "Open Meeting." How many Open Meetings have THEY been to? Obviously not many. ROTFLMAO!

Of the several areas of law where this Senate Bill 528 will cause massive problems for owners, time only permits a cursory discussion below.

How dangerous is this Bill? Very dangerous!

In one fell swoop, this bill hands the board more control and does so on a silver platter. The Bill FAILS TO ADDRESS THE BOARD’S OWN PREEMPTION! That is, the very minute the board hears that they are going to be removed from office (that's just one example) and a meeting has been called to accomplish that end, hey! Why not ELIMINATE THE NOTICE REQUIREMENT ALTOGETHER?

Ponder this: Once Senate Bill 528 passes, the board need only give FOUR DAYS NOTICE BEFORE ***ANY*** ***OTHER*** meeting that may have already been (1) planned, (2) noticed, (3) scheduled AND the board can do this while you are waiting for your PLANNED MEETING:
-FINE AND PENALIZE THE OWNERS (Senate Bill 528 gives the board time to disqualify any candidates that will be replace them)
-CHANGE THE CCRS (puh-leeze don't say this doesn't and can't happen! IT DOES with or without the owners consent, I’ve seen it happen!, and there’s MORE) The effect of this bill will send the owners to the galleys.
--There's so much more -- believe me, there is SO MUCH MORE -- I didn't even tell you about the electronic disenfranchisement of owners, it is rampant!

One problem with THIS Legislature and the ones before it, all the way back to the Davis-Stupid Act, is that Legislators throw-up on paper and call it "law" and do so all in the name of "For The People."

In my book, Common Interest Developments--Homeowners Guide, Section 1:7 et seq., (Thomson/West 2006-2008) I discuss the many problems surrounding "notice" and "meetings" and the deleterious effect these two (and other) issues have on PROPERTY OWNERS.

For reasons known only to them, California's legislature fails to understand the concept of fair play and justice!

They fail to legislate through LAW - safeguards - to PROTECT deed-restricted property owners. The laws they are passing are for CORPORATIONS NOT PEOPLE. When a law is in place for the BOARD, the board is a corporation, whether it is incorporated or not, it falls under the jurisdiction of corporate laws. [Common Interest Developments--Homeowners Guide, (Thomson/West 2006-2008)]

There are NO "TITLEHOLDER" laws to assist OWNERS in protecting their P-R-O-P-E-R-T-Y. Instead our property rights (if there are any) are handed over to a board.

There are more sections in the Davis-Stupid Act that guarantee LAWYERS THEIR FEES, than there is a mention of the word "HOMEOWNER." The word "homeowner" is mentioned: THREE TIMES. Go count how many times the word ATTORNEY FEES shows up. The law is NOT written for us.

One of the FEW ---believe me when I tell you F-E-W--- laws on the books that came close to protecting the interests of the OWNERS, was a TEN-DAY NOTICE REQUIREMENT FOR THE ASSOCIATION BOARD MEETING. If anything, it should be REQUIRED it should TEN DAYS NOTICE AND THAT TWO NOTICES BE SENT AND PROOF THEY WERE "RECEIVED" BY THE RECIPIENT. Instead, our Legislature spends taxpayer dollars disenfranchising us. Further, any management company personnel that interfere with these requirements should be prosecuted.

Senator Aanestad, if you care about how your Bill will effect millions of owners, please, pull this bill now, so that we don’t have to beg you to fix it after we’re forced to live by it. That is what's happened with another BAD BAD BILL: Civil Code Section 1363.03 - taking the lead for BAD BILLS.

Pulling Senate Bill 528 won’t make you look bad, it will put you at the top of our list as A GOOD SENATOR, it will show the public and most especially the OWNERS that you are stronger than all the other Legislators because you will be doing what is RIGHT and not what is expected of you by the industry.

Senate Bill 528 will come to be known as the "Let's Not But Say We Did" Bill. Senate Bill 528 is duplicative, not only of the Corporations Code but other similar statutes that address the same issue (and conflicting case laws).

Senate Bill 528 is a waste of taxpayer money because this LAW ALREADY EXISTS. In Corporations Code Section 7211 "Special meetings of the board shall be held upon four days' notice by first-class mail or 48 hours' notice delivered personally or by telephone, including a voice messaging system or by electronic transmission by the corporation (Section 20). The articles or bylaws may not dispense with notice of a special meeting. A notice, or waiver of notice, need not specify the purpose of any regular or special meeting of the board." Boards use this law ALL THE TIME, special meeting or not! ASK ME WHY THEY USE IT? BECAUSE THEY ":CAN" - THERE AIN'T NO PENALTIES FOR RECALCITRANT BOARDS AND THEIR AIDER AND ABETTOR MANAGEMENT COMPANIES!!!

The requirements under Corporations Code Section 7211 for calling a special meeting, aren’t special at all! Boards can merely CALL IT a special meeting, the rules are loose. BUT, the reason Corporations Code Section 7211 terms the FOUR-DAY NOTICE a "special meeting" is because THAT IS NOT ENOUGH TIME FOR A REGULAR MEETING TO BE CONVENED. [this is ALL discussed AT LENGTH, in my book (Common Interest Developments--Homeowners Guide)]

Senate Bill 528 will destroy what LITTLE owner protections that MAY exist in the law.

Again, from my book, there is NO STATUTORY DEFINITION in either the Davis-Stupid Act or the Corporations Code for "Regular" Meetings. [See Common Interest Developments--Homeowners Guide] The reason for that is: THE LEGISLATURE DID NOT WANT TO BOX THE BOARD IN, let alone subject a board to being placed behind bars where too many of the criminal DO belong.

Furthermore, if there is NO DEFINITION FOR A "REGULAR MEETING" Guess what? NO JUDGE WILL FAULT THE BOARD FOR THEIR ILLEGAL MEETINGS - this is the blank check the boards have been waiting for. As it is these judges do not understand the law, they look to association advisors FOR THE LAW and accept at face value what they are told. IF THESE STATUTES ARE NOT IPSO FACTO CRYSTAL CLEAR OWNERS WILL CONTINUE TO LOSE THEIR CASES IN COURT. This is NOT affordable housing, there is NOTHING "affordable" about it.

ALL of these statutes are geared toward giving the board MORE LEVERAGE. My question is this: WHAT THE HELL DO BOARDS NEED MORE LEVERAGE FOR?
Herein lies another BIG problem with Senate Bill 528.

All you owners out there need to understand what’s REALLY SCARY about this: Effective May 17, 2007, a third reading of this Senate Bill PASSED THE SENATE WITH 38 AYES. THOSE 38 SENATORS NEED TO BE BOYCOTTED. It is damn frightening that this bill passed.

It is frightening because we will be forced to live under this bad law with no hope of correcting it.

Senate Bill 528 purports to codify "notice’ requirements WITHOUT DEFINING "NOTICE" but also, this type of notice is as useless as the paper it is written on.

Here’s why.


--Is the notice effective when the board sticks a stamp on the envelope?
--Is the notice effective when the board actually places the notice in a U.S. Post Box?
--Is the notice effective when the board sticks a post-it on top of a telephone pole at 3:am?
--Is the notice effective when the board gives it to a third party vendor who might be a
manager, and say, "here, its your problem, do something with this?"
--Is the notice effective when the titleholder gets a flyer placed their cluster f**k mailbox but the manager has the key so the owner can’t access it until after the meeting?

"Nothing stops a board from claiming they gave notice, when they did not." See Vanitzian, Common Interest Developments--Homeowners Guide, Section 1:7 (Thomson/West 2006-2008).

Nothing could be more detrimental, nor dangerous than a ..... It is scandalous that the notice requirement is whittled down to four (4) days. This code section will prejudice and disenfranchise every titleholder in a common interest development from San Francisco to San Diego and back again. Owners who rely on mailed notices or do not reside at a given property, are ipso facto disenfranchised.

Presently the Open Meeting Act is a farce for a variety of reasons, far too many to list here. For too many owners the board meeting is the only forum where they can actually see their Wizards at work. That is, actually see them face-to-face and watch them conduct business. This Senate Bill will cut into what little time (and believe me it is LITTLE TIME) that owners get to speak at these sham meetings to begin with. NOW, with this Senate Bill, individuals who are not owners can speak. [more on this later]

Owners don’t need this kind of help.
Here’s Senator Aanestad’s Bill, that is FLYING through the Legislature with flying colors. Everyone voting for something THEY HAVE NO DAMN CLUE ABOUT. And who will be left to abide by these BAD BAD BAD LAWS...take a guess. It ain’t gonna be Senator Aanestad.

Owners, please contact the Senator's office and make him aware of your views. Then call those 38 numbnuts and tell them: WE'RE NOT GONNA TAKE IT ANYMORE!

Take a look at this BAD BILL - effective at the time I wrote this article, please check for the most current version of this proposed Senate Bill 528:


Two of the Worst & Most Detrimental Laws to Hit California are Sponsored by None Other than: California Association of Realtors (R) The Gold is Gone --No more gold in the Golden State!
Dear Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger,
SHATZI! PLEASE REMEMBER YOUR PROMISE TO US. Please listen to the people who support you and look to you to help us! When you first began buying property in California NO ONE told you what you could or could not do...

It apparently does not matter that titleholders with a vested interest in their property cannot get their legislators to carry legislation to help US, but, they can waste taxpayer funds by preventing the bills WE WANT and NEED by CHANGING *ONE* WORD in an...

So THIS is what the Senate calls an "Open Meeting." How many Open Meetings have THEY been to? Obviously not many. ROTFLMAO!

CAN YOU OUTSWIM YOUR HOA SHARKS? or will you drown trying?
Owning, let alone living in an HOA is a tough JOB and requires you be physically fit, possess a certain sophistication of the processes, and have the character let alone stamina, that allows you to be persistent in a manner that indescribable to REAL...

(c) D. Vanitzian
May 16, 2007The Gray Panthers are on record as SUPPORTING A BAD BAD BAD BAD BILL: Senate Bill Number 948. SHAME ON YOU. Where the heck are you getting your information from?

The Law of Unintended Consequences: Legislation and HOA BOD Cause and Effect: Clueless in my CAR
Coming off a most improbable but successful campaign to defeat SB 670 author and HOA advocate Vanitizian thanks supporters making a connection between the quality of legislation being passed in Sacramento, and the quality of life in most homeowners...

Paraphrasing the LA Times on Defeat of SB670 & Wicked Twin Witches of the West - SB 127 & AB-980
Taking a page out of the OC Register?s ?paraphrased reporting?, an article written by LA Times staff writer Diane Weder titled ?Bill to limit transfer fee founders?, published appropriately on May 13, 2007, quotes the president of the statewide Realtors...

One More Near Miss Avoided - Clueless in My CID/HOA
The number one rule in the Australian Aviation Magazine?s list of Flight Rules is the one about airplane take off and landing: Every takeoff is optional, Every landing is mandatory!It is safe to say that most travelers know that takeoffs and

Private Transfer Tax - Good for the Common Interest Development (HOA/CID) Industry or Good for the Politicians?
When we received our copy of the report that the California Association of Realtors (CAR) used to Sponsor and help draft transfer fees, we were confused. Given that Vanitzian has become an icon in Sacrament (some say a thorn in the legislature's side),...

How to Communicate with the CZ Master Association (and other HOAs)
Recently a CotoBuzz contributor received a stupid lawyer letter stating that the CZ Master Association board would no longer accept his requests via email.

OCR Paraphrasing in Laguna Woods Village
The CotoBuzz Journal previously reported on a brewing scandal related to alleged misuse of credit card by property management company employees in an article titled Laguna Woods Residents Outraged by Use of Credit Cards Issued to Property Manager...

Letters to the editor

Letters- Unreal State of Real Estate Bills
Regarding "Bill to Limit Transfer Fees Founders," May 13, on Senate Bill 670: The measure left the illusion of limiting the use of transfer fees, while in reality it would have undermined Civil Code Section 711, which has existed to protect Californians...

Power hungry association steals home from mentally ill person for $540 Assessments. The monthly fees for the home paid in full for nearly 20 years ago is only $183 a month. Brother tried to pay the money but the board would not accept it.
My brother lost his home in Coldwater North Cooperative, Inc because he is mentally ill and didn't know he had to pay $540 in dues. My mother left her home to us to protect my brother. The monthly fees for the home she paid in full for nearly 20 years...



Introduced by Senator Aanestad
February 22, 2007
An act to amend Section 1363.05 of the Civil Code, relating to common interest developments.
legislative counsel’s digest
SB 528, as amended, Aanestad. Common interest developments: open meetings.
Existing law requires that a common interest development be managed by an association. The Common Interest Development Open Meeting Act provides that any member of the governing association of a common interest development may attend meetings of the board of directors of the association, except as specified. The act also requires that notice of the time and place of a meeting be given to members at least 4 days prior to the meeting, except in the case of an emergency meeting, as described.
This bill would require the above notice to contain the agenda for the meeting. It would prohibit the board of directors from discussing or taking action on any subject matter at a nonemergency
meeting unless the subject matter was placed on the agenda included in the notice. The bill would provide that these provisions do not prohibit a resident who is not a member of the board from speaking on issues not on the agenda. The bill would also make technical changes.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: no.
State-mandated local program: no.
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
SECTION 1. Section 1363.05 of the Civil Code is amended to read:
1363.05. (a) This section shall be known and may be cited as the Common Interest Development Open Meeting Act.
(b) Any member of the association may attend meetings of the board of directors of the association, except when the board adjourns to executive session to consider litigation, matters relating to the formation of contracts with third parties, member discipline, personnel matters, or to meet with a member, upon the member’s request, regarding the member’s payment of assessments, as specified in Section 1367 or 1367.1. The board of directors of the association shall meet in executive session, if requested by a member who may be subject to a fine, penalty, or other form of discipline, and the member shall be entitled to attend the executive session.
(c) Any matter discussed in executive session shall be generally noted in the minutes of the immediately following meeting that is open to the entire membership.
(d) The minutes, minutes proposed for adoption that are marked to indicate draft status, or a summary of the minutes, of any meeting of the board of directors of an association, other than an executive session, shall be available to members within 30 days of the meeting. The minutes, proposed minutes, or summary minutes shall be distributed to any member of the association upon request and upon reimbursement of the association’s costs for making that distribution.
(e) Members of the association shall be notified in writing at the time that the pro forma budget required in Section 1365 is distributed, or at the time of any general mailing to the entire membership of the association, of their right to have copies of the minutes of meetings of the board of directors, and how and where those minutes may be obtained.
(f) Unless the time and place of meeting is fixed by the bylaws, or unless the bylaws provide for a longer period of notice, members shall be given notice of the time and place of a meeting as defined in subdivision (j), except for an emergency meeting, at least four days prior to the meeting. Notice shall be given by posting the notice in a prominent place or places within the common area and by mail to any owner who had requested notification of board meetings by mail, at the address requested by the owner. Notice may also be given, by mail or delivery of the notice to each unit in the development or by newsletter or similar means of communication. The notice shall contain the agenda for the meeting.
(g) An emergency meeting of the board may be called by the president of the association, or by any two members of the governing body other than the president, if there are circumstances that could not have been reasonably foreseen which require immediate attention and possible action by the board, and which of necessity make it impracticable to provide notice as required by this section.
(h) The board of directors of the association shall permit any member of the association to speak at any meeting of the association or the board of directors, except for meetings of the board held in executive session. A reasonable time limit for all members of the association to speak to the board of directors or before a meeting of the association shall be established by the board of directors.
(i) The board of directors of the association may not discuss or take action on any subject matter at a nonemergency meeting unless the subject matter was placed on the agenda included in the notice that was posted and distributed pursuant to subdivision (f). This subdivision does not prohibit a resident who is not a member of the board from speaking on issues not on the agenda.
(j) As used in this section, "meeting" includes any congregation of a majority of the members of the board at the same time and place to hear, discuss, or deliberate upon any item of business scheduled to be heard by the board, except those matters that may be discussed in executive session.


Select Blogzz & click icon

BlogSpot FeedBurner CotoBlogzz BraveNet Y!360

Archived Issues

General Information

HOA Resources

Emergency numbers

Public Safety Resources

Crime Watch

Sex Offenders in the Area

Real Time Traffic Report

LA Times Orange County


- What is RSS?

Area Links


The CotoBuzz Journal P.O. Box 154 Trabuco Canyon, CA 92678 (509) 355-8895

Privacy Policy | Need Help? | Contact Us | Administrator:

No comments: