Fourth Quarter 2004 - Kriger Law Firm by huangyinggok


									                                  HOA DIVISION

                               Joel M. Kriger, APC

Important Legislation Affecting Homeowners
                                                             News              Fourth Quarter Newsletter, 2004

   Legislation for 2005 Takes Effect January 1
                                           detailed in his letter to the Members

               s yet another legislative                                               new procedure, the new law provides
                year draws to a close,     of the California State Assembly (see       one for your association.
                 California law again      page 4).                                        The new procedure must be
             changes for common inter-         However, watch carefully for more       adopted by the association following
             est subdivisions. From such   of the same next year, as the bill’s sup-   the new rule adoption procedures
              diverse areas as dispute     porters have indicated that they will       from last year (30-day prior notice to
              resolution to financial      be reintroducing similar legislation in     owners, owners have veto rights).
               disclosures, California     a specific attempt to curb the use of       It must include the following
                homeowner associations     foreclosures to collect assessments.        requirements:
                are facing a slew of new   AB 1836, Dispute Resolution Changes         • Either party may invoke the
                 requirements that can     for Communities                               procedure.
                  prove a trap for the         The California Law Revision             • Such notice shall be in writing.
                  unwary. Directors and    Commission, after working several           • There must be prompt deadlines,
                  managers should          years on the Davis-Stirling Common            with a maximum time for the
                 review the governing      Interest Development Act, produced            association to act.
             documents for their com-      several pieces of enacted and pro-          • Associations must participate if an
            munities to ensure that any    posed new law. One of these took              owner invokes the procedure.
            required changes are made.     effect in 2004, and deals with proce-       • Owners may participate, but are not
           AB 2598, Restrictions on        dural fairness in rule and decision           required to.
          Assessment Collection            making, allowing owners to veto             • Both parties must have the means
          Vetoed by Governor               unpopular rules. The first of two             by which they may explain their
              Probably the most stun-      separate pieces of new legislation,           positions.
             ning, surprising and sweet-   Assembly Bill 1836, changes the way
                                                                                       • Owners have the right to appeal any
              est victory for homeowner    disputes are handled in common
                                                                                         decision directly to the board.
       associations in many years was      interest subdivisions.
                                               AB 1836 adds another layer of           • Any resolution that is not in conflict
        the veto of Assembly Bill 2598.                                                  with law or the governing docu-
         If passed, the law would have     rules dealing with disputes and viola-
                                                                                         ments binds the parties, and may
prevented associations from using          tions in community associations. The
                                                                                         be judicially enforced.
foreclosure to collect delinquent          new law will require hearing proce-
                                           dure mandated upon homeowner                • Owners may not be charged any fee
assessments under $2,500, and                                                            to participate in the process.
restricted collection remedies for         associations addressing disputes and
                                           violations in their communities. These          If you do not adopt a new policy,
amounts over that. For many commu-
                                           new procedures do not replace any           the new Civil Code §1363.840 applies.
nities this could have meant years of
                                           existing procedure (e.g. Civil Code         It contains a procedure specifically
nonpayment, by one or more owners,
                                           requirements of alternative dispute         including the above requirements.
creating a budgeting shortfall that
remaining owners would have had to         resolution), but add another layer of                              CONTINUED ON PAGE 3
pay more to address. Through the           dispute resolution procedures —
efforts of many groups, including the      specifically at no cost to the home-
California Legislative Action
Committee for the Community
                                           owner. And while owners may choose
                                           not to participate, homeowner associ-       Inside
                                           ations are forced to participate.           2005 Legislation .................................. 1-4
Associations Institute, a truly massive
                                                                                       1999 No-Pet Rule Enforced .................. 5
campaign of letter writing, faxing,        Fair, Reasonable and Expeditious
calling and e-mailing from thousands       Dispute Resolution Procedures               CID Oversight Agency Proposed ............ 6
of people throughout the state con-            Associations and boards must now        Lunch & Learns .................................... 6
vinced Governor Schwarzenegger             provide “... a fair, reasonable, and        Meet the Staff ........................................ 7
that this bill was not good. The           expeditious procedure ...” for resolv-      Joel Kriger Recognition .......................... 7
Governor’s reason for the veto was         ing disputes in their communities.          Education Schedule ................................ 8
                                           If the association does not adopt a
    New 2005 Legislation                         mail, facsimile transmission, or
                                                 “other means reasonably calculated
                                                                                             Fair, Reasonable, and Expeditious
                                                                                             Procedures, Again
     CONTINUED FROM PAGE 1                       to provide” notice.                             Remember “fair, reasonable, and
   New ADR Requirements                              The parties still have thirty days to   expeditious” procedures for dispute
      Associations and community owners          respond to an ADR notice, and ninety        resolution? The same factors now
   have been required to participate in          days to complete the process once the       apply to architectural applications.
   alternative dispute resolution as a pre-      notice is accepted. Now, specific provi-    Associations are required to provide
   lude to litigation since Civil Code           sions of the California Evidence Code       fair, reasonable, and expeditious pro-
   §1354 was enacted. AB 1836 makes              are applicable to the proceedings, and      cedures for making architectural deci-
   some changes to this law.                     any statute of limitation problem may       sions. These procedures must provide
      Civil Code §1354 is now modified to        be “tolled,” or extended, by participat-    prompt deadlines, and must state a
   only refer to enforcement of the decla-       ing in the ADR process.                     maximum time for responses by the
   ration and governing documents. The               Finally, the new law still provides     board or committee. Also, these proce-
   ADR provisions are now contained in           that the cost of the ADR process            dures must be included in the com-
   Civil Code §1369.510, et. seq. These          “...shall be borne by the parties.”         munity’s “governing documents,”
                                                                                             which is defined in the Civil Code to
                                                                                             mean the CC&Rs, bylaws, and rules,
                                                                                             among other documents.
                                                                                                 Any decision made on an architec-
                                                                                             tural application must be in accor-
                                                                                             dance with applicable law, including
                                                                                             California’s Fair Employment and
                                                                                             Housing law, and must not be unrea-
                                                                                             sonable, arbitrary, or capricious.
                                                                                             Decisions must be in writing (no more
                                                                                             talking to the owner on the sidewalk!),
                                                                                             and if the application is disapproved,
                                                                                             the written notice must contain the
                                                                                             reasons why it was disapproved,
                                                                                             and the procedures needed for
                                                                                             Owners’ Right to Appeal
                                                                                                 If an application is disapproved, the
                                                                                             owner is entitled to reconsideration by
                                                                                             the board of directors. This reconsid-
                                                                                             eration of the denied application does
   new provisions for ADR are slightly dif-      Changes to Annual Notices to Owners         not need to be made at an open meet-
   ferent from the §1354 provisions, but            The new ADR statute still requires       ing, but it does not qualify as the first
   ADR is still required for disputes for        an annual notice to owners summariz-        step in the internal dispute resolution
   declaratory, injunctive, or writ relief, or   ing the law, with a specific paragraph      process. Thus, an owner whose applica-
   that relief in connection with a claim        included. Additionally, the notice to       tion is denied may first appeal to the
   for monetary damages not exceeding            owners must now include the internal        board for reconsideration, then, if
   $5,000.                                       dispute resolution procedures adopted       denied again, may start the dispute res-
      Matters subject to the prior ADR           pursuant to §1363.850.                      olution procedures required by the
   requirement have been expanded and            AB 2376, New Requirements for               new law.
   clarified. “Enforcement Action” is            Architectural Reviews
   defined in the new law as civil actions          Long a function of the board or a
   or proceedings, other than cross com-         committee, the review of architectural
   plaints, to enforce provisions of the         changes in common interest subdivi-
   Civil and Corporations Code govern-           sions has been one of the more impor-
   ing homeowner associations, and the           tant aspects to preserving the flavor
   governing documents for the com-              and feel of a community. It has also
   munity. Both small claims actions and         been a source of friction between
   assessment disputes are excluded from         owners and associations.
   this pre-litigation requirement.                 A new Section 1378 is added to the
      The ADR notice must still be served        Civil Code affecting the way associa-
   on the parties to the dispute. However,       tions review and approve or disapprove
   the new law allows for service by per-        architectural applications for changes
   sonal delivery, first-class mail, express     by owners.

2 Anderson & Kriger Quarterly Newsletter
No Right to Change the                     membership. Previously this summary        Changes to Reporting Timeframes
Common Areas                               needed only be in a certain type-face.         The time for distributing the
   The new law specifically does not       Now, this summary must be in the           budget, reserve summary, and other
authorize any owner to propose or          same type-face, and must also be based     notices to owners has been length-
make any physical change to the com-       only on assets held in cash or cash        ened. The new timeframe is thirty
mon area that is inconsistent with the     equivalents. Additionally, the summary     to ninety days before the fiscal year
governing documents for the com-           must include, in addition to existing      (formerly forty-five to sixty days before
munity or applicable law. Nor is the       requirements and statements, a state-      the fiscal year). This change applies to
association, board or committee            ment as to the mechanism by which          distribution of (a) the budget and
required to approve such a change.         the board will fund the reserves,          reserve summary, (b) the lien enforce-
                                                                                      ment statement, and (c) the insurance
                                                                                      New Mandatory Assessment and
                                                                                      Reserve Funding Disclosure
                                                                                      Summary Form
                                                                                          A new Civil Code §1365.2.5
                                                                                      contains a new form required in
                                                                                      disclosing to owners the assessment
                                                                                      and reserve funding summary. This
                                                                                      new form must accompany each
                                                                                      budget or budget summary distributed
                                                                                      to owners. While the form may be
                                                                                      supplemented or modified to “...clar-
                                                                                      ify the information delivered,” the
                                                                                      minimum information set out in the
                                                                                      form must be provided.
                                                                                      New Notice Before Borrowing
                                                                                      from Reserves
                                                                                          Associations have been able to bor-
                                                                                      row from reserves to fund short-term
New Annual Notices to Owners               including assessments, borrowing, use
                                           of other assets, deferral of repairs, or   cash flow issues in their operating
    The new Civil Code §1378 requires
                                           other alternatives. Also, in any reserve   accounts, subject to certain require-
associations to provide a notice to
                                           summary statement or report, reserve       ments. There is now an additional
owners each year. This disclosure must
                                           funding calculations may not assume a      requirement that before any such bor-
contain notice of any requirements for
                                           rate of return on cash reserves in         rowing, or before delaying any repay-
approval of architectural applications
                                           excess of two percent above the            ment, the board must provide notice
and describe the types of changes that
                                           rediscount rate published by               to the owners of the meeting at which
require approval. Additionally, the dis-
                                           the Federal Reserve Bank of                the action will be discussed.
closure must include a copy of the
procedure used to review and approve       San Francisco.                                                CONTINUED ON PAGE 4
or disapprove a proposed change.
AB 2718, New Financial Disclosures
and Reserve Requirements
    As many communities mature, the
issue of reserve funding becomes cru-
cial to associations and owners alike.
In response to concerns raised by
Realtors and others, this new law was
enacted to revise the provisions gov-
erning the distribution of financial
and other documents to owners, and
requiring a specific format for assess-
ment and reserve funding disclosures.
It is required for reports and disclo-
sures made after July 1, 2005.
Changes to Reserve Disclosures
    Associations have been required to
include a summary of their reserves
with the budget distributed to the

                                                                                       Anderson & Kriger Quarterly Newsletter 3
    New 2005 Legislation                                            e California State Asse
                                                To the Members of th                  signature.
     CONTINUED FROM PAGE 1                                                     ly Bill 2598 without my
                                                 I am returning Assemb                                                   rn Common
                                                                                             s to the laws that gove
   New Method of Delivery of Escrow
                                                 This bill ma      kes sweeping change                                     for failure
                                                                                             the foreclosure process
                                                  Interest De      velopments (CID) and                              the intent of
                                                                                        rs’ assessments. While
                                                             delinquent homeowne
       Owners have been obligated pur-
                                                  to pay                                                           homeowners
   suant to Civil Code §1368 to provide                                                 d intended to protect
                                                  this leg    islation is laudable an                           linquent assess-
   certain documents to prospective pur-                                            on for small sums of de
                                                   fro m being foreclosed up                              gatively impact all
   chasers. This obligation normally is sat-                                    y broad and could ne
   isfied in an escrow for sale, when the          ments, this bill is overl
   association is requested to provide the         homeowners living in                                     ssments for other
                                                                                result in increased asse
   documents, which associations are                This bill could unfairly                  ssments in a timely ma
                                                                                                                          nner and
   obligated to provide. This new law               homeowne        rs who pay their asse                                    lien
                                                                                               perty in CIDs due to the
   allows those associations who maintain           may delay       the transfer of real pro
                                                                                  the bill.
   the documents in an electronic format            procedures set forth in                                             against a
   to provide them via an electronic                                                      t course of action taken
                                                     Forec   losure should be the las                       ion betw    een home-
   transmission or machine readable elec-                                          re more open discuss
   tronic storage media (e.g. CD-ROM) if             homeowner. If there we                     ny conflicts could be
                                                                                 ciations, ma
                                                     owners and their asso                                 36 (C   hapter 754, 2004)
   the parties agree.                                                            signed into law AB 18
                                                     That is why I recently                 04). These bills establish
                                                                                                                            methods to
                                                     and AB 2718         (Chapter 766, 20                                     tween
                                                                                                 tter communication be
                                                      encourage       more disclosure and be
                                                      homeowners and their                                              ure statutes is
                                                                                           rification in the foreclos
                                                      I recog    nize that additional cla                            incrementally
                                                                                         ange should be made
                                                      nece    ssary. However, this ch                               fore, I am directing
                                                                                       impacted parties. There
                                                      wo   rking together with all                            siness, Transportation
                                                                                    er Services and the Bu
                                                       the State and Consum                                    interested stakehold-
                                                                                  s to work with all of the
                                                       and Housing Agencie                                  for collecting CID
                                                                                   sure that the process
                                                       ers to develop and en                    ined so that all homeow
                                                                                                                               ners are
                                                        homeowne       rs’ assessments is ref                             ery reason-
                                                                                             ure only occurs after ev
                                                        treated    equitably and foreclos
                                                        able alternative is exha
   AB 224, Fire Retardant Roofing                                              Sincerely, Gov. Arnold
       In response to the October wildfires
   in Southern California, Assembly
   Member Christine Kehoe introduced,
   and the Governor signed, a bill
                                                Skip Daum              is the CLAC Liaison to CAI National and works for
                                                CIDs in making sure legislators know “both sides of the story” when it comes
   restricting the ability of associations to
                                                to passing or vetoing new laws.
   require replacement roofing that poses
                                                Skip led a massive letter-writing
   a fire danger. This new law is applica-
                                                and phone-calling campaign
   ble to those communities located in
                                                along with grassroots California
   very high fire severity zones, and was
                                                CLAC members to help veto AB
   designed to address a common cause
                                                2598 in the best interest of
   of massive destruction during a wild-
                                                California homeowner associa-
   fire — wood-shake roofing materials.
                                                tions and those members that
       Once again, associations, board
                                                customarily pay their assessments
   members and managers are faced
                                                on time. Be on watch on this
   with a new set of regulations that
                                                topic of foreclosure in homes
   they must follow. If you have any
                                                where assessments were ignored
   questions on these or any other issues,
                                                for seemingly small amounts of
   please feel free to contact our office
   for assistance.
                                                   It may resurface with better
       Attorney Ken Dillingham is the current
                                                alternatives and new language
   Legislative Action Committee Roundtable
                                                but “It will be back” as Governor
   Chair and CLAC Delegate for San Diego
                                                Arnold Schwarzenegger would

4 Anderson & Kriger Quarterly Newsletter
California Supreme Court Remains Consistent with Trial & Appellate Court                    she purchased the property and, there-

1999 No-Pet Rule Enforced                                                                   fore, it could not be enforced against
                                                                                            her. Again, the California Supreme
BY LAURI CROCE, ESQ.                                                                        Court rejected these arguments based
                                                                                            on the Davis-Stirling Act.
             I  n Villa de las Palmas         restriction. The Association thereafter
                                                                                                Terifaj proffered a third argument
               Homeowners Association v.      filed an amended complaint alleging
                                                                                            by which she averred, in effect, that
              Terifaj (June 14, 2004) 33      the same causes of action and seeking
                                                                                            amended CC&Rs are not enforceable
              Cal.4th 73, the California      the same relief as the original com-
                                                                                            as equitable servitudes like original
              Supreme Court addressed         plaint, this time based upon the
                                                                                            CC&Rs are. The California Supreme
              several procedural and          CC&Rs rather than the Rules &
                                                                                            Court rejected this argument for being
substantive issues pertaining to the          Regulations for the community. The
                                                                                            as destabilizing as the first argument.
enforceability of CC&Rs in general,           judge in a bench trial (i.e., a trial with-
                                                                                                Fourth and finally, Terifaj argued
and pet restrictions in particular. The       out a jury) ruled in favor of the
                                                                                            that the no-pet restriction in the
questions addressed were (a) whether          Association. They found the covenants
                                                                                            CC&Rs did not meet the Court’s own
use restrictions added to the CC&Rs           and restrictions in the Amended
                                                                                            Nahrstedt standards, in that it was sub-
through an amendment and recorded             CC&Rs were enforceable equitable
after a homeowner had purchased an                                                          stantively arbitrary and imposed a bur-
                                              servitudes, and granted a Judgment
individual unit were binding on such                                                        den on Terifaj that far outweighed any
                                              against Terifaj permanently enjoining
an owner, and (b) whether the                                                               benefit to the community from the
                                              any further violation of the no-pet
California Supreme Court’s rule set                                                         rule. Here, the California Supreme
forth in Nahrstedt v. Lakeside Village                                                      Court first explained that the Nahrstedt
                                              Supreme Court rejects arguments               rule applies to subsequently adopted
Condominium Association (1994) 8
                                                  Terifaj made several arguments to         and recorded use restrictions incorpo-
Cal.4th 361 (“  Nahrstedt”) – that restric-
                                              the California Supreme Court in seek-         rated into a development’s CC&Rs as it
tions in a common interest develop-
ment’s declaration are presumed to be         ing to overturn the Judgment. First she       does to original CC&Rs. (Interestingly,
reasonable and enforceable – applied          argued that the restriction in the            the Nahrstedt case also involved a pet
with equal force to CC&R amend-               CC&Rs banning pets was added after            restriction.) Then it held that the Villa
ments. The answer to both questions           she had purchased her Villa de las            de las Palmas CC&Rs provision pro-
was a resounding “yes.”                       Palmas unit, and therefore did not            hibiting pets was not unreasonable as a
                                              apply to her. The California Supreme          matter of law. The Supreme Court reit-
Veterinarian moves pet in – breaks rule       Court rejected this argument, holding
    Villa de las Palmas is a small condo-                                                   erated its pronouncement in Nahrstedt
                                              that use restrictions added to CC&Rs          that prohibiting pets is “rationally
minium development consisting of 24           by amendment bind not only subse-
mostly vacation-home units located in                                                       related to health, sanitation and noise
                                              quent purchasers, but current home-           concerns legitimately held by resi-
Palm Springs. Pursuant to the author-         owners as well. The California
ity granted in the Villa de las Palmas                                                      dents” of common interest develop-
                                              Supreme Court noted that Terifaj’s            ments. And importantly, the Court
CC&Rs – but not a specific provision          argument ran counter to a clear read-
in the CC&Rs banning pets – the                                                             held that the recently enacted Civil
                                              ing of the applicable statutes con-           Code Section 1360.5 (which requires
Association adopted a no-pet rule.            tained in the Davis-Stirling Common
Paula Terifaj, a veterinarian who pur-                                                      associations to allow at least one pet in
                                              Interest Development Act. The Court           all governing documents created after
chased her vacation home unit in              also reasoned that her argument was
1995, did not receive a written copy of                                                     January 2001) does not contradict the
                                              untenable, stating that “to allow a dec-      conclusion that a no-pet restriction
the no-pet rule, but was admittedly           laration to be amended but limit its
aware of it at point of purchase. Yet,                                                      may be reasonable and enforceable
                                              applicability to subsequent purchasers        under the circumstances. The Court
she brought her boxer dog to the              would make little sense,” since Terifaj’s
complex in violation of the rule.                                                           explained that Section 1360.5 does not
                                              scheme would result in use restrictions       mean all no-pet provisions are unrea-
Terifaj attempted to have the Associ-         applying to some but not all owners in
ation amend the no-pet rule at the                                                          sonable – it merely demonstrates a
                                              the community at any given time –             legislative preference for allowing
Association’s 1996 and 2000 general           leading to instability in the com-
meetings, but was unsuccessful.                                                             homeowners in common interest
                                              munity, precisely what the CC&Rs are          developments to keep at least one pet.
Warned, Sued, and Enforced                    meant to avoid.                                   It is worth noting, in conclusion,
    The Association repeatedly warned             Second, Terifaj argued that the no-       that Terifaj not only lost her case in
Terifaj that she was violating the com-       pet provision added to the CC&Rs was          the trial court, the appellate court,
munity’s no-pet rule and was eventu-          procedurally unreasonable because             and the California Supreme Court,
ally compelled to bring suit against          the provision was not contained in a          but she was also required to pay
Terifaj in August 1999.                       document recorded prior to her pur-           the Association’s attorneys’ fees in
    During the pendency of the lawsuit        chase of a unit in the development. In        addition to her own.
to enforce the rule, the members of           other words, Terifaj argued she did
the Association voted to amend their          not have notice of the restriction when
CC&Rs to add a specific no-pet use

                                                                                              Anderson & Kriger Quarterly Newsletter 5
  Within Department of Consumer Affairs

  CID Oversight Agency Proposed
                                            Mediation — The Commission                 and efforts through mediation are
              T   he California Law
                 Revision Commission,
               appointed by the Legisla-
                                            believes that many homeowners associ-
                                            ation disputes can be resolved inex-
                                                                                       unsuccessful, the Bureau would have
                                                                                       the authority to issue a corrective cita-
               ture to examine the laws     pensively, informally and amicably         tion. This citation would order abate-
               governing community asso-    through Bureau-facilitated mediation.      ment of the violation and could
               ciations, is proposing the   The law will allow any person to           include other relief. In addition, the
  creation of an oversight agency for       request the Bureau’s assistance in         Bureau will also be empowered to
  community associations. The Com-          resolving a dispute. On receipt of such    impose an administrative fine of up to
  mission is in the process of having                                                  $1,000 per violation against any indi-
  informational hearings on the pro-                                                   viduals it finds that have acted with
  posed law before it is finalized and        The law will allow any                   malice, oppression or fraud. Any fines
  submitted to the Legislature for            person to request the                    imposed against Board Members can-
  approval. Laws submitted by the non-                                                 not be indemnified by their com-
  partisan commission have an 80-90           Bureau’s assistance in                   munity association, but must be paid
  percent rate of passage.                                                             by the Board Member individually.
     The proposed law would create the
                                               resolving a dispute
                                                                                          Financial support for the Bureau
  Common Interest Development                    through bureau                        will come entirely from the residents
  Bureau within the Department of                                                      of community associations. The
  Consumer Affairs. Primarily, the func-      facilitated mediation.                   required fee would be paid by the
  tions of the Bureau would be three-                                                  community association when it regis-
  fold.                                     request, the Bureau shall, within its      ters with the Secretary of State every
  Education — The Commission found          resources, investigate the dispute, con-   two years. The initial funding would
  that homeowners do not fully under-       fer with the interested parties and        be set between $5 to $10 per unit
  stand their rights or obligations in      assist in efforts to resolve the dispute   per year.
  communicating with their associations.    by mutual agreement of the parties.           The Commission is now holding
  Mistakes and misunderstandings are        Law Enforcement Powers —                   informational hearings regarding this
  inevitable and may lead to serious,       The Commission believes there will         proposed law. If it decides to proceed,
  costly and divisive problems. The         be some disputes that cannot be            a statute will be drafted and submitted
  Bureau’s purpose in educating officers    resolved through appeals to reason         to the Legislature.
  and homeowners is to reduce or pre-       and goodwill. When the Bureau finds a
  vent the severity of these unforeseen     violation of community association law,

   Community Managers Only – Laws in Effect January 1, 2005
       New laws will take effect on January 1, 2005 and the following management
   companies have reserved their dates for a “Legislative Legal Lunch & Learn” —
   call Patee at (800)425-6397 ext. 322 to reserve your date.
       1. November 9, 2004 – Haven Management in Ontario
       2. November 12, 2004 – Mega Management in San Diego
       3. November 18, 2004 – Euclid Management in Upland
       4. December 8, 2004 – Hudson Management in San Diego
       5. December 10, 2004 – CMS in Upland                                              Optimum Management Company in
       6. December 17, 2004 – Castle Breckenridge in San Diego (La Mesa)                 Tustin invited Joel Kriger and Patee
       7. January 21, 2005 – Mauzy Management in Temecula                                Barta to present a Legal Lunch &
       Attorney Ken Dillingham, current delegate and chairperson for the                 Learn on Maintenance Responsi-
   Legislative Action Committee of CAI San Diego, will present the new laws on           bilities and CC&R Enforcement in
   power point with legislative handouts. Marketing Director Patee Barta, current        August of 2004.
   liaison to the CAI-San Diego Board on the Legislative Action Committee will
   assist Dillingham.

6 Anderson & Kriger Quarterly Newsletter
 Meet the Staff
Lauren Derstine, Esq.
   Lauren Derstine, a resident of La Mesa, brings nine years of experience in insurance
defense litigation, real estate and construction law to her position as an associate with
Anderson & Kriger. She deals primarily with such matters as association and homeowner
rights, contract disputes, property rights, assessments and collections, employment issues, and
document review in the firm’s Homeowners Association Department.
   She is a member of the San Diego County Bar Association, Lawyers Club and volunteers
through the San Diego Volunteer Lawyers Program assisting children to maximize their spe-
cial education opportunities. She is also a registered fiduciary. Ms. Derstine was admitted to
the New York and New Jersey bars in 1994 and practiced insurance defense with an emphasis
on commercial and personal injury cases in Newark, New Jersey with the firm of Wilson,
Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman and Dicker, LLP during the mid 1990s. In 1998, she relocated
to San Diego, California where she gained extensive litigation experience representing
developers and subcontractors in construction defect cases.
   Ms. Derstine received her Juris Doctorate at the University of Houston Law Center in
Houston, Texas, and her Bachelor of Arts degree, cum laude, in Psychology with minors in
Philosophy, Spanish and Art History from Rutgers College in New Brunswick, New Jersey.

Legal Assistant to Attorneys Lauri Croce & Lauren Derstine

Bonnie Randall
   Bonnie Randall joined Joel M. Kriger, APC, a division of Anderson & Kriger, as a full-
time legal assistant to Attorneys Lauri Croce and Lauren Derstine in the Community
Association General Counsel Division of the firm. After her hire on April 1, 2004, she
began working in litigation, revision of community association governing documents
(CC&Rs) and general office procedures. Since October 1, Randall also assists Office
Administrator Janet Wilcox.
   Randall says, “I’m pretty basic – worked as a legal secretary for a sole practitioner and
two partners in law firms in Rockville, Maryland for the past 15 years primarily in civil liti-
gation, general practice and family law.”
   The motivation to move to southern California, ultimately leading to her hire with Joel
M. Kriger APC, was to be closer to her daughters, Jennifer, 29, a resident of Newport
Beach, the Senior Marketing Representative for the Anaheim Angels, and Kelly, 26, a resi-
dent of Pacific Beach and employed by the YMCA before and after-school program as a
Site Supervisor for a junior high in La Jolla. Randall has been married to her high school
sweetheart, Bill, for 35 years.
   The Rockville, Maryland law firms Randall spent so much time with were Sullivan, Talbott & Batt and the sole practi-
tioner is Stacy J. Blondes. Rockville is a suburb of Washington, D.C.

                                                             Kriger Recognized for 20 Years with CAI
                                                                 Joel Kriger (second from left) was recognized as a 20-year mem-
                                                             ber and past president of CAI San Diego. He addressed the crowd
                                                             from the podium at the September Mini Trade Show at the Del
                                                             Mar Hilton Hotel. Enjoying the comradery of industry profession-
                                                             als and members of his staff, Kriger “strikes a pose” at his booth
                                                             with Patee Barta, Marketing & Public Relations Director, Lauren
                                                             Derstine, Esq., Janet Wilcox, Office Administrator, Lauri Croce,
                                                             Esq., and Ken Dillingham, Esq..
                                                                 All of us at the Joel M. Kriger APC firm congratulate Joel on his
                                                             long-standing relationship with San Diego CAI and his service with
                                                             Greater Inland Empire and Orange County Chapters.

                                                                                             Anderson & Kriger Quarterly Newsletter 7
    Leadership in Legal Education 2004/2005
                                                                                                           Attorneys at Law
         Attorneys Joel M. Kriger, Lauri Croce and Kenneth Dillingham will teach                   ______________ • ______________
                 the following courses in Homeowner Association Law:                                       Corporate Office
                                                                                                      8220 University Avenue, Suite 100
     CACM Law Seminars — 2005                        Homeowner Association Law                            La Mesa, CA 91941-3837
         Panel on Fair Employment and Housing –      for Board Members and Their                    (619) 589-8800 · Fax (619) 589-2680
     Joel Kriger and State Department of Fair        Managing Agents
                                                                                                     Offices in Temecula, Orange County,
     Employment and Housing Representative                                                          Riverside, Antelope Valley, Sacramento
                                                     NOVEMBER 6, 2004
     will discuss “What Is Fair About Fair
                                                     GROSSMONT COLLEGE
                                                     9 a.m. to Noon · Lauri Croce, Instructor
         This is an overview from the manager’s
                                                     8800 Grossmont College Drive,
     perspective of the Federal and State laws
                                                     El Cajon, CA 92020
     that prohibit discrimination in housing, and
                                                     Room 554 – Park in Lot
     required accommodations in their rules for
     the disabled.
                                                     Contact: Community Learning                          Manager
     JANUARY 14, 2005
                                                     619-660-4350; Refer to Schedule No. 4099
                                                     REGISTRATION: $35 (plus $12 payable in
     SAN DIEGO TOWN AND COUNTRY RESORT               class to instructor for optional book)           8-hour Class plus Exam
     8:30 - 4:30 p.m. · Self Parking $8              JANUARY 29, 2005                                          MARCH 5, 2005
     500 Hotel Circle North, San Diego, CA 92108     UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA                          8 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. · Saturday
                                                     RIVERSIDE EXTENSION CENTER
     Call hotel and ask for special CACM reduced     9 a.m. to 12 Noon · Lauri Croce, Instructor
     room rates!                                     1200 University Ave., Riverside, CA
                                                     Contact: To use VISA or MasterCard, call                   Joel Kriger
     JANUARY 21, 2005                                909-787-4105 or 800-442-4990 or e-mail                           AND
     MILLENNIUM BILTMORE HOTEL                       to register at:                    Ken Dillingham
     8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.                          Registration: $60 (includes Condominium
     506 South Grand Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90071   Blue Book text and parking)                     University of California Riverside
     213-624-1011                                    EDP 043-LPS-F67                                         Extension Center
     February 4, 2005                                                                                 1200 University Ave., Riverside, CA
                                                     APRIL 9, 2005
                                                     CITRUS COLLEGE
     8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.                                                                          Contact: To use VISA or MasterCard,
                                                     9 a.m. to 12 Noon · Joel Kriger, Instructor
     Joel Kriger will speak                                                                                call 909-787-4105 or
                                                     1000 West Foothill Blvd.
     between 10:00 and 11:30 a.m.                                                                   800-442-4990 or e-mail to register at:
                                                     Glendora, CA 91741-1899
     1001 Broadway, Oakland, CA 94607                                                             
                                                     Contact: Continuing Education
                                                     626-852-8022                                            Registration Cost: $105
                                                     Registration: $45                               (includes work binder, test, & parking)
                                                     Book: Condominium Blue Book, $12.00
                                                     (to instructor)                                           EDP 043-LPS-F68

                                                                                                                                 BULK RATE
                                       News                                                                                     U.S. POSTAGE
                                                                                                                                PERMIT NO. 1
                                                                                                                               SAN DIEGO, CA
       Joel M. Kriger, A.P.C.
       8220 University Avenue
       La Mesa, CA 91941-3837
(619) 589-8800 · FAX (619) 589-2680


    If you no longer wish to receive
      the A&K News, please call
  (619) 589-8800 and let us know.

To top