« April 2006 | Main | June 2006 »
May 26, 2006
May an HOA Board Take Action Without A Meeting?
A reader asked me if an HOA Board can take action without a Board meeting, and then proceeded to tell me what other attorneys say about it. What I got was that attorneys apparently do not agree on the subject. (What a surprise?) My take on it is that Board's sometimes need to take an action by unanimous consent. There are times when things come up that need attention right away, and the Board members may be scattered. Or one or two are out of town and can be reached by email but that's it. Or the Board cannot meet or get a conference call going in time for a decision.
Now I realize that in California, the legislature ruled that meetings at associations should be open to members except for certain protected meetings such as executive sessions (because of the confidentiality) and emergency meetings (because of the inability to give proper notice to owners).
This is part of what the Davis Stirling Act says on the subject:Civil Code Section 1363.05 is known as the Common Interest Development Open Meeting Act. It says:
"(b) Any member of the association may attend meetings of the Board 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 members payment of assessments as specified in Section 1367 or 1367.1. The Board 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. ... and ... "(f) 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.
Ok, that's the rule on meetings. However, that is not the end of the inquiry on board action. The California Corporations Code says (and most HOAs in California are corporations):
"7211. (a) Unless otherwise provided in the articles or in the bylaws, all of the following apply: ...
(b) An action required or permitted to be taken by the board may be taken without a meeting, if all members of the board shall individually or collectively consent in writing to that action. The written consent or consents shall be filed with the minutes of the proceedings of the board. The action by written consent shall have the same force and effect as a unanimous vote of the directors. For purposes of this subdivision only, "all members of the board" does
not include an "interested director" as defined in Section 5233, insofar as it is made applicable pursuant to Section 7238."
So you can see, the Corporations Code allows action by written unanimous consent. However, so as not to violate the spirit of 1363.05, it is best, I believe, to confine such action to items that are either of a emergency nature or exeutive session meeting where all HOA directors could not be at a meeting.
Posted by Beth Grimm at 9:48 PM
May 20, 2006
Commercial Vehicles in HOAs - Have You Received Your Notice Yet?
A reader wrote the following note to me, searching for information on the subject: "We just recently purchased a condo in ____. My husband drives a company/commercial truck provided by his company. He's been parking in the common parking area and yesterday, one of the homeowners approached him and said that commercial vehicles are not permitted to park in the common areas of the community. He further stated that eventually they will tow vehicles violating this rule. We have not reviewed our CC&R's but is this not discriminatory?"
The simple answer is "No", it is not discriminatory. People often confuse the term. "Discrimination" occurs when one party does something to another that violates their constitutional rights. These rights are identified in Constitutions, with federal rights being consistent among Americans because of the United States Constitution. States may add another layer of rights through voter referendums and so added rights vary among the state constitutions - California being one of the front runners in identifying and protecting rights. Still, the right to park a commercial vehicle in a residential association is not a fundamental right in any constitution I am aware of.
The other time the word "discrimination" surfaces in the HOA context , although still not technically appropriate in a legal sense, is when the Board enforces a rule inconsistently among owners or imposes a restriction on one or fewer than all of the owners. People tend to use the word loosely as in, "They discriminated against me by towing my truck and not the neighbors." The correct legal cause of action in that case would be breach of fiduciary duty for inconsistent enforcement of the rules. (A bunch of legal jargon I know but it is important not to misconstrue discrimination claims if you want to sound like you know what you are talking about.)
Getting back to the commercial vehicle and possible restriction in the documents. Actually, it is a very common restriction in residential community associations. I did not ask for the details in this case but it you are interested in finding out about your association, and you are in California, pull out the docs you got in the purchase of your property and look. Most likely it would appear in the CC&Rs - aka the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (hence the shortcut CC&Rs name). It probably is there in some form. It may be very general - look for a section on "uses" and you will probably find some language prohibiting commercial vehicles (if you live in a residential community). In other states, your regulatory document may be called something else like "Deed Restrictions" , but I am referring to the recorded regulatory document as the most likely place to find such a restriction.
Then, Boards sometimes expand on what is or is not allowed by providing more descriptive details on what they interpret to be commercial vehicles, in the rules. Some boards focus on signs, racks, ladders, size, and obtrusiveness (level of offense to the systems - or simply put "how ugly is it?"). Many commercial vehicles do not fit very well in parking spaces, carports, or garages and many people do not like to look at a big yellow tow truck or "The Bug Van" with a big black spider covering the entire exterior, in the neighbor's driveway or street in front of their house. So its understandable that there are restrictions. On the other hand, since pickup trucks and the like are required to purchase commercial plates, some might consider them commercial vehicles but it seems overkill to try and ban pickup trucks used for transportation. They are "hot" after all, aren't they? They are even marketing special models for females these days, and a well kept truck would likely be more aesthetically pleasing than your average beat up older model gray honda even to a non-truck person.
Back to the question at hand, how offensive is a regular size vehicle, truck, van or otherwise, with a sign on the side or on the back? Some Boards deal with this by suggesting that owners may use magnetic signs so long as they remove them when the vehicle is parked in the development. Some let it be and don't have such a "suggestion" or rule.
In any event, its not discrimination in the true sense of the word. That word is a trigger that sets people off so if you want to approach an issue with the Board or any other person and want the other party to listen to your plea, I suggest you keep that word in your pocket. It would be "inconsistent" treatment if the Board does not enforce the restriction consistently among owners, and that word is not usually the kind of word that, when used, causes the listener to shut out everything else that is said after it.
So take another look at the situation, and look for a reasonable solution. Perhaps there are questions that need to be asked - like whether there are any rules that clarify the interpretation of what a commercial vehicle is, whether the vehicles can be parked in the garage, etc. In one situation a client of mine was involved in, the employer let the worker drive a smaller truck home at night so it would fit in his garage.
And boards cannot really ban all pickup trucks, broncos and the like used for personal use (I am not talking about cross-over vehicles used for personal and commercial use here) just because someone does not like trucks. A common problem in being to literal is that because of a case quite a few years ago that established that one man's bronco is another mans rolls royce. boards are hard pressed to prohibit such vehicles. (Keep in mind this is not legal advice, just information.)
Since there are so many varied HOAs in this state (California), I will not go into what limits are right or wrong for any particular one. This is something I discuss with a client if they want to get more clarification written into rules on what they can allow and what they cannot allow. I appreciate a board that wants to fit the rule with the community lifestyle so it can be enforced without starting a civil war.
Posted by Beth Grimm at 9:22 AM
May 13, 2006
Elections Immunity and Liability Questions-Where Is California Going?
I suggest that you watch what is going on in Sacramento. SB 1560 was just amended to remove the immunity clause that would protect Boards from liability for cummunications it is required to send out for candidates in HOA elections in California. Even if the Board tries to instill some reasonable rules about common decency in communications, there is no lid on what a member of the association can send to fellow members, and if the member is a candidate, no lid on what they can say in communications that are sent to the members during an election.
This is what the law currently says about this: [HOAs must] "... Ensure that any candidate or member advocating a point of view is provided access to association media, newsletters, or Internet Web sites during a campaign, for purposes that are reasonably related to that election. Equal access shall be provided to all candidates and members advocating a point of view, including those not endorsed by the board, for purposes that are reasonably related to the election. The association shall not edit or redact any content from these communications, but may include a statement specifying that the candidate or member, and not the association, is responsible for that content."
What was removed from the cleanup language recently? This language: "The association, its directors, officers, and agents shall be immune from liability for the content of such communications and for distribution of such communications."
Now you tell me why it is fair to take out proposed cleanup the very language that would protect Boards from communications the law requires them to send out to members even when the communications include misstated facts, defamatory comments, misleading information, negative, inciteful or downright immoral comments.
If a member wants to send something particularly offensive, he or she can do it under California law. In addition to the election laws, he or she can demand a membership list of names and addresses of members. If members have opted out of being on this list, the Board still has to make alternative arrangements for mailing of member materials (at least in this case it is at the member's expense).
Now most of us who serve associations and try to help Boards work their way through the maze of California laws know from experience that in the vast majority of HOAs, the problem is finding people willing to commit to a board term, not having to try and put a lid on defamatory communications, but for those few associations with contested elections, the law is on the side of the irrationals.
There is a difference between a responsible challenge to Board actions or choices in vendors, managers and attorneys, and a spiteful vent that serves no other purpose than to criticize. There is a difference between being frustrated and being mean-spirited. But some people do not know the difference, and the law protects them.
Given that the legislators in this State are looking at the possibility of a CID Bureau that would allow people to call in and complain about their association boards and probably even managers, and given that the State has shown little or no movement in funding any educational resources that would help volunteer board members cope with the complicated laws or learn how to become fiscally intelligent about budget panning and implementation, I think that Board members should start talking to their local legislators about what they need to be able to do the job. If you know what is going on, you know that some of the State's legislators are bent on implementing laws that would punish Board members. Yes, Virginia, there are Bad Board Members, but I would bet my bottom dollar that there are more uneducated boards than "Bad Boards" and piling on the liability is going to do nothing more than shrink the pool of willing volunteers, which is already very very shallow.
So what can you do? Log onto the State website http://www.sen.gov and plug in any bill number you want to and check it out. You can opt to be put on a list where updates will be sent to you automatically. Visit the site http://clrc.org and see what the California Law Revision Commission is up to. Go to a hearing. Talk to the legislators about how difficult it is to be a board member subject to so many complicated laws without a free educational resource at the state level. Tell them how scary it is to be criticized, threatened with lawsuits, and expected to know about laws that are not published in a language you can understand. The agendas are on the CLRC site. Visit CLAC (the CAI California Legislative Action Committee)at http://www.clac.org and "Responsible Neighbors" at http://www.responsibleneighbors.com to find out about pending legislation and what it means to boards and homeowners in HOAs. And last, but not least, visit the California Guru at http://www.californiacondoguru.com to find out about new laws, proposed changes, how to cope and other things by reading the articles, FYIs, and pointers to the hottest issues in California. And one more thing, there is a plain English guide available on the guru site called "The Davis Stirling Act in Plain English." Its not free, but it's worth its author's weight in gold. Check out the "Publications Available" link on the front page.
Maybe you need to start a movement. (I can help.) If you are a board member or homeowner who follows rules, pays assessments on time, and thinks that is enough, you need to wake up. You and your boards may be hit with more than you bargained for. Already, compliance costs for coping with new complicated laws are rising every year, pushing Boards to increase budgets to the legal maximums, resulting in increased assessments. It takes an educated and experienced practitioner just to help an association cope with required laws and practices and that costs money. Finding board members as liability increases and reward decreases (which is kind of a joke anyway because even if their pay doubles, it will still be $0.00) will become more and more difficult. If you do not have knowledgeable members and leaders willing to serve on the Board because of the liability aspects, or the complicated nature of the laws, you will either end up with the irrationals with personal agendas at the helm, or in receivership. You will not be heard over the complainers, deadbeats and vitriol arising from the anecdotal horror stories that are brought to the legislators in California. I am not suggesting that anyone downplay the bad stuff and let it continue. But what I am suggesting is that the pendulum could swing too far in the direction of punishing innocent board members that the model for a successful HOA could be skewed by the lack of volunteers willing to serve.
So you can sit in your armchair and enjoy your "carefree living" so long as you are willing to pay more and more each year for professional help, or start a dialogue going with others and your own legislators to let them know that the 'balance" of fair treatment of board memhers needs to be considered at every turn, and the State needs to provide a resource for board members so they can learn to do things right - a resource that is free!. And one more thing, since the State relies on Board volunteers to run the entities that save the State from massive infrasctucture costs, some sensitivity must be given to reasonable protections from liability. The State is willing to protect its own in granting immunity from liabilty even for negligent acts to public "servants" (which again, is kind of a joke because they actually get paid), but it is far from giving the same protections to volunteers willing to serve on HOA Boards. This just does not seem fair, and it hurts you more than it hurts me, so get on your soapbox and ask for what you need. The "grassroots" is (or maybe its 'are', for you semantics lovers) a powerful tool.
Posted by Beth Grimm at 9:01 AM
May 12, 2006
Do We Have To Have An Inspector(s) of Election?
Yup. E-Day is coming July 1, 2006 for Californians in homeowner associations. For certain elections (defined now but subject to expansion because of proposed "cleanup legislation"), all HOAs will have to find Inspector(s) of Election and as of today, they are not easy to find. You can look within the Association but you had better know how to properly use inspectors and find people that will not back out at the last minute if that is your plan. And within a year or so expect a cottage industry of providers to surface. Watch the guru site for news and resources!
Posted by Beth Grimm at 11:26 PM
"E-DAY" IS COMING - You Will Need New Good Election Rules!
. E-Day is coming. Every homeowners association in California has to adopt election rules for elections that involve assessments (above the legal limit the board can impose without member approval), board member elections, amendments to the governing documents and transfer of common area. And proposed "clean up" legislation, SB 1560, may expand the rules to all association elections. Timing? Look for a provider now who knows their stuff, and get help, because integrating the new elections processes is not a "slam dunk". The law was written without regard to existing Corporate Law requirements and common governing document language and its not easy to interpret or to apply to "real life" Association elections. In fact it is so not easy to interpret that attorneys in this State who do Association work exclusively and have for years do not agree on its interpretation or implementation. Everyone is qualifying their proposals to write election rules with CYA language like: "we will help you to make a good effort to comply with the new law." I challenge you to find a definitive representation like: "We know how you can absolutely avoid challenges to your elections' processes." So find someone you trust to serve your association, not some family law who did your divorce or patent attorney brother-in-law who thinks the law sounds simple enough.
And do this as soon as you can, because you will need the rules for every election that is subject to the law taking place after July 1, 2006. In fact, if cleanup legislation is passed, you will need them for all association elections taking place after July 1. But there is one more twist. This does not mean you are doomed if you do not get the rules by July 1, but there is a strategy in the timing. Visit the guru at http://www.californiadondoguru.com to read about timing. Click on the SB 61 New Elections Law link on the front page, and then on the timing link.
There is clean up language proposed that may or may not be approved, and also there is talk of it taking years to really "clean up" this new law, so be prepared for changes even after the rules are drafted. Get the picture? The State legislature has unwittingly created a "full employment for attorneys act" with this new elections reform. Attorneys are needed to draft the rules, to challenge the rules, and to defend Associations that get challenged on implementation. And don't blame the attorneys for the problems. Attorneys all over the State are asking for changes that will clarify and simplify the law, without success. Why is there confusion? Since attorneys have different types of associations as clients, ranging from 3-4 unit condos to highrises to 2000+ single family home developments, there is disagreement as to the best way to "fix" the law. Talk about being caught between a rock and a hard place. It just doesn't get much more challenging than this for Board members.
Watch out for the pitfalls in this new law. To see what to watch out for, check out the condoguru at http://www.californiacondoguru.com. Click on Elections After SB 61 on the front page. And don't talk to too many different attorneys. You will just get more confused.
Posted by Beth Grimm at 11:17 PM
Should Husband and Wife Both Serve On The Board?
Is it illegal for both husband and wife or two live in roommates to serve on the Board in one association? Here is the plight of one owner who questions whether it should be allowed:
"We have a 5 member board of directors and 2 of the board members are living together as a married couple. Between them they own 4 units. Is there anything in the law that prohibits a husband and wife or a cohabitating couple from sitting on a board of directors at the same time? This gives a lopsided vote and more power on decision making to the board in my opinion. Can you help?"
I cannot provide legal advice in this answer, but can provide some feedback that may help. In a 5 person board, having 2 people from the same unit is not quite the lopsided view of a 3 person board with a husband and wife serving. But still...
It gives the perception of imbalance for sure. It is not illegal for any number of persons from one unit or married persons to serve at the same time on an HOA Board; at least this is the case in California. However, it would not be allowed if the Declaration of Restrictions, Bylaws, or Articles of Incorporation (as the governing documents are called in California) had a prohibition against allowing more than one Owner of a single property in the development or a husband and wife (regardless of the numbver of units owned) from serving on the Board. However, the question arises as to whether it is fair to prevent two people who are cohabiting or are married that own two units from serving on the Board together. They represent the same proportion of units that two strangers serving on the Board would represent. The more common restriction might be that two people from the same Unit could not serve on the Board at the same time. Either of those prohibitions would probably be rare in any set of documents prepared by the developer, because restrictions on board members (qualifications) are usually nonexistent, as it is important to a developer for employees and representatives of the developer to be able to serve. Even non-owners are generally able to serve during the early stages. I do not believe putting a restriction on service that is different than what the Bylaws say into a rule is legal, as Bylaws generally contain the requirements and qualifications for serving on the board and the Bylaws would require homeowner approval for amendments.
But here's the flipside. In some associations there are a very limited number of people wiling to serve on the Board. It happens in some cases that a husband and wife or two Owners of one unit are both willing and qualified to offer something to the Board. Sometimes no one else will serve and that is the only option left. I have seen a few situations where it actually serves the Association well to have a full board of people qualified with skills to divide up and do the work, even if two of them are married, related or otherwise connected. And, I have seen situations where the two people have been on the Board together for years, and the Association is served well by the participation of these people who have special skills and business expertise, and then all of a sudden, someone with an ax to grind or someone who simply starts paying attention finds out and assumes there is some impropriety or imbalance, without specific facts to back it up.
Still, even in the best of situations, I have seen members whisper and gossip and complain about a board made up of 2 owners from one Unit or even when each owns a unit. I have seen recall efforts based on this very single issue, justified or not.
I think it is best if an Association has the opportunity to avoid board service by multiple members of the same "family", but do not offer a blanket statemnt or judgment about any given situation because I have seen benefits and drawbacks to both sides of the issue and have seen situations where I thought there should not be a prohibition and situations where I thought there should be. The question is whether the Association is being served well or not in either case.
Posted by Beth Grimm at 10:13 PM
May 10, 2006
Copper Pipes and Pinhole Leaks
I recently attended a National CAI (Community Associations Institute) Conference in Palm Springs and also an APRA (Association of Professional Reserve Analysts) Conference which conveniently enough, were scheduled back to back. Presence at these functions lead to, among other things, some new information (for me at least) related to copper pipes and pinhole leaks. Why should I care about that? Because I often get called upon to assist associations that need to get loans or get approval for assessments to replace copper pipes that are leaking. I learned about a new method for dealing with pinhole leaks that is much less invasive than pipe replacement and thought this might be interesting news for readers. (You never know what you might read about here.)
I learned about companies that provide the service of coating copper pipes with epoxy as an alternative to replacing copper pipes. Why is this important? As I understand it, after talking with 3 vendors (two of which spoke at one of the two conferences), water quality statutes are requiring more chlorinates (is this the right word?) in the water. And the higher chemical requirements wreak havoc with copper pipes. The various vendors pointed out what their processes involved and (what appeared to be) miraculous results with a process that does not require replacement of pipes. The process from a "lay" perspective is that they check the pipes, and if it is determined that there are pinhole leaks, drain, dry and sand the inside of the pipes, and then shoot epoxy into them with a process that causes the epoxy to coat the inside of the pipes. If they find larger leaks, they use more traditional methods of repair.
The idea that there could be a fix without the disruption of homes, lives and systems seems quite encouraging. And some of the vendors claim that doing the project in phases allows for a turn around within a day - in other words, turn the water off in the am, and have it back on at night. Given the disruption, arguments over move out costs, and arguments over build back, this process seems to me to be a gift from ... well, ... the pipe gods. The companies with whom I spoke had some very favorable references. The "fix" has been done in some very notable historic buildings which could not have used the traditional fix of pipe replacement.
One of the vendors compared the costs to this process to pipe replacement when the contract calls for build back. It is the build back that escalates the cost of the pipe replacement, apparently, and it was my impression that if build back is not required, the pipe replacement might be less expensive. Whoa now, though, don't assume that requiring the owners to do their own build back is the solution to any cost issues. The legal fees fighting that battle may pay for the pipe replacement or epoxy fix.
Pipe leaks are a nagging problem and the costs are high when they are prevalent, not just in the repairs, but in the fights over who pays for the hardwood floor replacements, the carpets, couches, furniture, fixtures and mold remediation when a slab leak leads to other issues. AND when they lead to a negative claims history and difficulty in procuring coverage. At one of the seminars, I heard that Associations all over the country are getting letters that the insuror is going to a "one leak" rule - meaning if there is one slab or other leak claim, the coverage will cease as to water leaks. Many policies in California already exclude water leaks and mold.
And apparently, the existence of copper pipes in either older or newer developments will subject the owners to leaks equally because of the changes in water running through the pipes, the makeup of which is changing to satisfy EPA requirements. Some of the vendors had been contacted for pipe leak issues that erupted in pipes less than two years old. Apparently, what I was told (but who am I, just another lawyer - maybe a gullible one) that it takes longer for the older pipes to suffer from the new water, because of the years of buildup of something called "patina". So new pipes may be even more vulnerable.
Perhaps this new and what seems innovative practice will take off; perhaps people will continue to feel safer with a traditional fix. I am just a purveyor of information that I think might be helpful. If you are interested in doing the research, check out google for copper pipes alternatives, epoxy coating, etc. Do the homework, go to trade shows and talk to vendors, whatever it takes, if you are interested in exploring this technology.
(And no, I am not getting any kickback!)
Posted by Beth Grimm at 11:49 AM
May 8, 2006
RECALL EFFORT - WHO PAYS?
Here is a sticky question recently sent to me: "My HOA board was recalled. The new board had hired an attorney to help them with the recall and then once elected paid him with HOA funds. Is this right?"
Right, legal, or proper, which do you want to know really. Legal? I do not believe there is a law in California that specifically says the board cannot do that. Right? Is it "right" ?- that is a fiduciary responsibility question. Proper: Perhaps, and this seems to be a moral inquiry.
There might be some limitation in the governing documents that would either allow or prevent it. There may be a limit on dollar amount or purposes of expenditures. If the Board that was removed was ignoring the law or the governing documents and the owners would be entitled to recover fees based on a "prevailing party" argument, this kind of board action might be found justifiable.
One way to test the theory that it is not proper would be to file a small claims action against the Association and/or the individuals who approved the decision to recover their share or such an expenditure. I do not have a crystal ball and cannot predict how a small claims court referee would rule on this. But its an option.
Boards have a lot of lattitude, but whether that lattitude extends to paying off individual expenses accrued prior to coming into power is the question. When I represent groups of owners seeking recall, the question always comes up. I advise the group to raise the money beforehand so that the question of whether the fees can be recovered does not overshadow or dilute the efforts of recall.
So legally correct, right, moral or proper? The answer is subject to debate and to the best of my knowledge, as yet untested in court.
Posted by Beth Grimm at 11:10 PM
DRAINAGE ISSUES - WHAT TO DO? WHAT TO DO!
One of my frequent visitors on the website (http://www.californiacondoguru.com) asked this question:
"We have a lot of drainage problems in our complex. There is nothing in our CC&R's about drainage in the common area nor do I see anything written in Davis-Stirling. Who should we have inspect our buildings for drainage and how do I/we know if it is causing problems to the building?"
If there are signs of any kind of drainage problems, or a spurt of actual problems and similar topography and conditions throughout an association, a board should certainly consider having an inspection by a drainage expert, soils engineer, or geotechnical engineer. Someone qualified to assess slide damage probably has the expertise. Since I am not a contractor, there may be more resources. Googling anything is a good way to gather more technical information on a potential problem. The right kind of expert could determine the extent of the threat to buildings or otherwise.
In any case where there are indications of potentially serious problems, a board should check it out by talking to the right kind of expert. This could include structural defects, sinking buildings, water stained ceilings or walls, termite and/or dry rot reports that indicate the possibility of widespread problems, signs of mold, slippery walking surfaces, sidewalk cracks and other trip hazards, etc. A board has a fiduciary duty to address potential problems and investigation of the signs is just a threshhold requirement. The duty is even more prevalent when there are signs or the Board has knowledge of a potential hazard or maintenance problem. The next inquiry is what should be done and when, if there is a problem identified. The expert can help with that, and the association's lawyer can help with the extent of duty.
Now, back to drainage. There are so many potential problems if drainage issues are not addressed properly: water intrusion, mold, damage to property, personal illness, flooding, slides, road and bridge washouts, etc. There are so many things that need to be controlled in risky drainage situations. There may be a need for french or other type of drains, gutter/downspout diversion, prohibitions on hot tubs or ponds, etc. that require occasional draining and cleaning, strict landscape/architectural controls and review processes to avoid exacerbating drainage issues, the need for expert review of plans, removal of trees with serious root issues, and other fixes.
The only way a board will know is to get a realistic assessment of the situation, by the right kind of expert. And in California, board members can protect themselves from individual, personal liability for mistakes if the Board consults the right kind of expert in a situation that requires a certain type of expertise to resolve or pose possible resolutions.
So don't say "drainage - schmainage." Just say "help".
Posted by Beth Grimm at 10:40 PM