THE LAW OF INTENDED CONSEQUENCES - WHAT A DIFFERENCE A "WORD" MAKES:

THE LAW OF INTENDED CONSEQUENCES - WHAT A DIFFERENCE A "WORD" MAKES:

NO! ON ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 563

by D. Vanitzian, J.D., Arbitrator

May 20, 2007

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 existing statute.

ONE WORD! AT WHAT COST?

My first question:

Why the hell didn't they have their overpaid so-called legislative analysts catch that so-called problem when they got their buddies to vote YES on its passage the first time around?

My second question:

Is this the bill that your office was referring to when I asked LAST YEAR if you and/or your cohorts would consider carrying a bill to impose PENALTIES AGAINST RECALCITRANT BOARDS AND THEIR LAWYER ADVISORS, and was told, "oh, I’m sorry, the Assemblyman already has all the bills he’s going to carry for next year, you’ll have to try back in 2008."

Not to put too fine a point on it, but Assemblyman Villines is carrying a Bill (Ass. Bill. 563) that USED to read as follows (in pertinent part):

"has been approved by the required number of owners, trustees, beneficiaries, and mortgagees pursuant to Section 66452.10 of the Government Code, the certificate need ONLY be signed by those owners, trustees, beneficiaries, and mortgagees approving the conversion."

Assemblyman Villines is proposing to DELETE the word "ONLY" and MOVE IT as follows:

"has been approved by the required number of owners, trustees, beneficiaries, and mortgagees pursuant to Section 66452.10 of the Government Code, the certificate need be signed ONLY by those owners, trustees, beneficiaries, and mortgagees approving the conversion."

You say, "what’s wrong with that?" Let’s REWIND for one minute . . . . .

Government Code Section 66452.10 is located in Article 2 (Tentative Maps) and addresses: stock cooperative or community apartment project; conversions to condominium; required number of favorable votes of owners, trustees or beneficiaries.

Here’s Government Code Section 66452.10 as it stands as of May 17, 2007:

"A stock cooperative, as defined in Section 11003.2 of the Business and Professions Code, or a community apartment project, as defined in Section 11004 of the Business and Professions Code, shall not be converted to a condominium, as defined in Section 783 of the Civil Code, unless the required number of (1) owners and (2) trustees or beneficiaries of each recorded deed of trust and mortgagees of each recorded mortgage in the cooperative or project, as specified in the bylaws, or other organizational documents, have voted in favor of the conversion. If the bylaws or other organizational documents do not expressly specify the number of votes required to approve the conversion, a majority vote of the (1) owners and (2) trustees or beneficiaries of each recorded deed of trust and mortgagees of each recorded mortgage in the cooperative or project shall be required. Upon approval of the conversion as set forth above and in compliance with subdivision (e) of Section 1351 of the Civil Code, all conveyances and other documents necessary to effectuate the conversion shall be executed by the required number of owners in the cooperative or project as specified in the bylaws or other organizational documents. If the bylaws or other organizational documents do not expressly specify the number of owners necessary to execute the conveyances or other documents, a majority of owners in the cooperative or project shall be required to execute the conveyances and other documents. Conveyances and other documents executed under the foregoing provisions shall be binding upon and affect the interests of all parties in the cooperative or project. The provisions of Section 66499.31 shall not apply to a violation of this section."

After reading Government Code Section 66452.10, IN MY LAY OPINION, it appears that the LEGAL SIGNIFICANCE OF RELOCATING the word "ONLY" to its new position is HUGE.

If that code section is amended to read as Assemblyman Villines wants, then ONLY those who APPROVE of the conversion (already a topic of contention statewide) need sign. It eliminates ALL OTHER OWNERS from the democratic process. It also has the potential of creating a liability for the association, because of its selective enforcement of that document.

Again, I believe that this bill FAVORS the LAWYERS and/or THOSE INDUSTRIES WHO INITIATE CONVERSIONS. Period. IT HAS THE INTENDED CONSEQUENCE OF DISENFRANCISING ALL THE MINORITY SHAREHOLDERS WHO DISAGREE.

There is much more to this than meets the eye. Will save the rest for later. Does the public want or need Assembly Bill 563?

In one word: NO!
RELATED STORIES

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...

THE LAW OF INTENDED CONSEQUENCES - WHAT A DIFFERENCE A "WORD" MAKES: NO! ON ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 563
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...

EMERGENCY! EMERGENCY! OOPS! WE JUST HAD THE MEETING! YOU MISSED IT!!
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...

HEY GRAY PANTHERS! YOU GOT IT WRONG!
(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...


























Advertisement












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

Subscribe

- What is RSS?

Area Links

ORANGE COUNTY BLOGS:












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



Privacy Policy | Need Help? | Contact Us | Administrator: cotobuzz@yahoo.com