« February 2007 | Main | April 2007 »
March 28, 2007
Can't Park Your Vehicle in Your Spot? Look Before You Buy!
How do you avoid getting into a difficult practical situation?
Here is one scenario:
"We own a van, and we found after we moved into our townhouse that it just barely fits in the garage. What a nightmare, getting in and out, getting the kids in and out. Everyone else must feel the same way as us because the streets in this brand new development are flooded with cars. It looks like a parking lot. I think everyone is parking outside their garages – is there anything we can do?"
This is one of those very difficult situations and it illustrates how a dream can quickly turn into a nightmare, if you do not pay attention to detail. Many developments look a lot different in the first phases when the properties are just built because everything is brand new, and neat and tidy. And hardly anyone lives there yet. Sure, things look perfect, and people forget they will not always look that way. Once the development is built out, the beautiful view from the model homes might no longer exist. The streets, although beautiful and free of cars, pickups and vans might later be cluttered with vehicles, especially if they are public streets. On the one hand the association may not decide to adopt rules about what is parked on the streets because of potential issues. If you like the streets free of parked vehicles, this could backfire for you. On the other hand, the Association may be one that does set rules prohibiting street parking. Maybe you were counting on parking your third or fourth vehicle in the street. These are questions you may want to attempt to clarify before you sign on the dotted line.
Posted by Beth Grimm at 1:22 PM
Want to Buy A Condo? Where Do You Start?
I want to buy a condo, but what do I look for, you know, so I don’t get burned?
Here is what not to do: trust yourself, trust a realtor who does not sell very many condos, or ... think it doesn’t matter who you talk to. Here are some things to do:
Locate your area or areas of choice.
Find a Realtor who is an area specialist who commonly deals with condominiums, or who is known to sell in those areas. Getting referrals from satisfied clients is the best way to find an honest reliable realtor. And know that a condominium is a unique property with characteristics that are not obvious to anyone who has not studied them.
Be sure to drive through the complexes that interest you, look around, check out the condition of the buildings housing the homes, and the common areas like the pool, clubhouse, greenbelt, parks, etc. Are the neighborhoods well tended and well kept? Are the common areas clean and well kept? Are the streets and driveways fairly clear of distracting vehicles or is every inch of the street running through the development cluttered with parked vehicles, leaving only a narrow thoroughfare. Is the landscaping kept up? Are the trees trimmed? Are they very large and close to fences or the homes? Are there walkways? Does the neighborhood look kid friendly (if you have kids), or quiet (if you don’t). Are the balconies cluttered with items that should be in storage?
Try to drive through during the day so you can see the condition of the complex, the fences, yards, and buildings, and also do a drive through in the evening so you can see what happens when everyone comes home from work. Do people you see wave and smile, or not wave and not smile? Is the setting country, or urban? What is around the development, shops or open space? Are people out walking around or does the development look deserted? Are the mail boxes stuffed with advertisements falling out all over the place or are they neat and tidy
You know more about what you like than the realtor does. Some places you can scope out yourself, but others might require hooking up with a realtor (like a gated community). The important thing is: can you see yourself living there?
Posted by Beth Grimm at 1:20 PM
March 20, 2007
Harrassment of Contractors - What, If Anything Can Be Done To Prevent It?
Unfortunately, there are times when residents or board members cannot leave a contractor working on premises alone. This question arises more often than one would like to hear:
"Our association has a troublesome [could be either owner or board member]. This resident becomes unruly at board meetings, criticizes all contractors in the meetings and even in front of the contractors if they come to the meetings to explain what they are going to be doing. He/she interferes with maintenance and workers in the building. We have been through a number of contractors and many will not do work in the building from now on because of past interference. This is becoming a bigger and bigger problem.
Is there anything that can be done about it?"
The answer to this question is not easy. Convincing a difficult owner (board member or not) to leave contractors on premises alone is not easy, but it is necessary. The points to be made are:
1. That if the owner has a complaint or report to make about the contractor, that it must be presented in writing either to management, or if there is no management, a board member, and the board will consider it through the processes adopted to deal with contractor issues.
2. That if the owner does not stop bothering or harassing contractors on site or in meetings, that the board will have to take more assertive action, such as considering fining, suspension from meetings, or possibly legal action.
There are actions that can be taken - the less drastic could be found in the governing documents including the rules, the fining policies if your association has them, possibly through means alternative to litigation such as arbitration or mediation. But if that does not work, the association cannot afford the ultimate result if indeed there is harassment and/or defamation.
A legal harrassment claim or a defamation claim which can occur if unjustified complaints and accusations are occurring can be expensive. And if there are reasons to complain about a contractors work, there are channels to deal with that.
If the harassment really gets out of hand, then the best thing to do is get legal advice as to how to restrain the conduct. The Association could seek restraining orders if that is really necessary.
Posted by Beth Grimm at 9:27 PM
Overpayment of Assessments - Can I get a Refund?
Here is a very unusual question that I received:
A reader discovered that she had been overbilled/overpaying on her monthly homeowners fees for 4 years or more. When she reported it to the Board of Directors, it took several communications and attendance at a face to face meeting to get the board to finally acknowledge the overpayment. The ultimate decision was to repay 8 mos of the fees which covered the period of time from the date the concern was raised through the acknowledgement date. The question is whether this is a fair resolution.
Since I am not giving advice on this situation and I have not spoken with the board, I will not say whether I think it is fair or not. It seems to fall short of the mark though. The person asked about statutes of limitations. In California, if the assessment was not paid for more than 4 years, a board could likely only collect up to the last 4 years, because of a statute of limitations on contracts that could be raised. I do not know if this would have bearing on how far back a person could go to ask for overpayments. One could find out, however, by going to small claims court and asking there to have the question resolved. That would be my suggestion. The mere filing of a claim might lead to more discussions on the subject.
The larger question here might be what would happen if everyone was being overcharged, and one or two fought the battle and got a refund or credit of a portion of the overpayment, but the board did not deal with this larger question once discovered. There are ways to address this as well, as a group. However if it were to happen, I assume that if the money was collected and used for valid purposes, the board would not want to start giving refunds or credits piecemeal.
Posted by Beth Grimm at 9:25 PM
Apathy, Apathy, Apathy ...............Elections, Elections, Elections
I still get the calls - every day in fact - "What do we do when no one is interested in serving on the board? ...... or "What do we do when we can't get enough people to vote?" or "How do we cope with the new complicated elections laws?"
I have written many times in this blog about apathy and about the new election laws. So now its time to get serious and offer some real suggestions for getting to the core of the problem. Check out http://www.californiacondoguru.com for a recently posted (or very soon to be posted) article on "Apathy". While you are there, check for recent articles on elections as well - two in fact - one about whether the K.I.S.S. principle can be applied and one on the "What Ifs" that have come across my desk ("What if this happens?", "What if that happened ...?" etc.). The Apathy article is generic to the world of HOAs for the most part and is posted for informational purposes. The other two articles are California specific and are also posted for informational purposes. Neither is intended for legal advice to act upon in your association, without the blessing of your own legal counsel. Keep in mind that professionals still do not agree on all aspects of the Elections Law. Maybe in a year or two we will all be closer to consistent, once we have been through tried and true (or tried an failed - which may be the better) lessons.
My motto: For every problem there is a solution. We just have to try to find it working together. You let me know what problems you are having and I search for solutions. You let me know what things are working and I let others know about them. Its a circular thing.
The legislators are not going to stop legislating. I have just been in Sacramento for a few days teaching a class and brainstorming with the Community Associations Institute - California Legislative Action Committee (aka CAI-CLAC) learning about the new laws, what they mean, and what messages should be carried to the legislators about the harm/good the proposed bills carry with their potential impact. There are a bunch of new laws that will affect HOAs and their ability to operate successfully.
The question is, "Can we keep our heads above water with the host of new laws regulating HOAs that have already been, and are yet to be, approved by the lawmakers without any sense of the practical aspects of operating and managing an HOA?
We'll just have to see..................
Posted by Beth Grimm at 1:05 PM
March 15, 2007
"I don't want to follow the law." What Can Happen?
Many Boards in California of HOAs that do not have professional management (and some that do) are fed up, tired, hungry, and just want to go home. The laws are overwhelming. Need I say it again ..... seriously overwhelming. They picture the feds, the state, the other board members and the association members are all lying in wait for them to do something wrong. Well why not just take a stand - we are fed up. The costs are too high ... the members won't like it if we spend the money to (it could be anything but these are some examples I am hearing about) get a reserve study, get election rules, send out double envelope ballots, hire election inspectors, build up the reserves, purchase earthquake insurance (when the documents require purchasing it) , etc. etc. etc.
So what is the worst that can happen? .........................................................#$!*&%*#
(Before launching into this, please be advised that I hate to be the bearer of bad news, that I am doing everything within my power and time constraints, and that I have been hammering the state leaders, to provide more low cost education, simpler laws, and processes that do not require the services of a rocket scientist (or lawyer) to figure out.)
That said:
1. A board that does not follow the law subjects the entire Association to legal claims for damages of any kind (damages meaning monetary losses, loss in value of homes. personal injury, etc.) and fines (for records inspections rights violations, meetings violations, elections violations and that kind of thing).
2. A board that knowingly does not follow (=ignores) the law can lose the protections provided by insurance for acts of board members as one of the components of the coverage is negligence (accidental mistakes), and knowingly violating the law is not negligence. It is much worse.
3. A board that knowngly does not follow (=ignores) the law can lose the protections provided by statute (Civil Code Section 1365.7 and Corporations Code Section 7231 and 7231.5) for acts of board members as one of the components of the coverage is good faith (accidental mistakes), and knowingly violating the law is not negligence. It is much worse.
4. HOAs in California are mostly incorporated as Non Profit Mutual Benefit Corporations under the jurisdication of the Attorney General's Office, and so failure to follow the law can bring down the AG's hammer (maybe not as likely as an arrow coming from the membership because the AG's office often responds that they do not have the resources to pursue HOA owner complaints - but still, a possiblity that should not be ignored).
Often, the board member or manager will say something like: "Well, everyone else is doing it (meaning ignoring the law), so why can't we? I say, "If you choose to drive 95 down the freeway in a 65 mile zone, because everyone else is doing it, but you get caught, what do you think the police officer is going to say?" Here is the scenario most likely - "Well, I caught you and I am going to throw the book at you." What is unsaid is "I just heard you admit you knew you were going to fast." On the other hand, if you are going 45 mph in a 35 mph zone and no one is around, the police officer might just let you off with a warning, especially if you say: "Sorry officer, I did not know this was a 35 mph zone." In many cases, what the officer is trying to determine is whether you really did know, or made an innocent mistake. How do I know these things? My son is a police officer.
I think come "judgment day" for any Board that is not following the law might present a similar picture, but I would never tell a Board to "count on it."
Either can have serious ramifications for the Association and each board member that does it. It can have fallout that reaches other board members if the majority of the Board chooses to ignore the law. It can, in the worst cases, lead to individual liability on the part of the board members, extreme and unanticipated special assessments for the members, and maybe even punitive (that means "just for punishment") damages.
Make an effort to learn what to do, work to get on track, and although the laws are complicated, don't ignore the fact that they exist hoping you won't get caught. ............... And last but not least, as Collin Powell has said: "Get mad .... and then get over it!"
Or, if you cannot get over it and need a cause, gather up some of your cohorts and write to or visit your local legislator and plead your case as a board member (or board members) trying to do the right thing. Tell the legislators how complicated and difficult it is to try and figure out what is right. Let them know that placing the focus on punishment for those who are trying, instead of providing readily available education, is just not fair.
Posted by Beth Grimm at 10:42 AM
March 12, 2007
Acclamation and Appointment for Lack of Candidates/Interest - More On The Subject.
The elections questions never end. I have been communicating with Janet of www.parli.com, (Robert McConnell Productions). There are articles and answers to questions on www.parli.com related to homeowner association election issues and resources and publications you won’t find anywhere else. The following information related to Roberts Rules was provided to me and I highly recommend visiting the site for even more questions and answers.
Now ... we were talking about the kinds of problems that arise over finding enough candidates sufficient to need a ballot, a lack of voting quorum, and qualifications for Board members (all of which are ongoing concerns for homeowner associations). I asked for feedback about how Roberts Rules looks at these issues.
She has a different perspective that I and than managers of associations. She is, however, an owner in a common interest development and has served on her board of directors. Now, here are some important thoughts she shared with me:
On striving for nominees: "The way I read the California law that you sent me, it does not require more people to be nominated than there are positions. Looking at the concept from a Robert's Rules prospective, Robert's does not recommend pitting people against each other, but finding the best people to be nominated for office. In finding the best people, he means those who are current on dues or assessments, and having certain talents or abilities that fit the position. For example, some one who has accounting or bookkeeping experience would certainly be a good fit for the office of Treasurer. Some one who can't balance his own check book would not make a good treasurer. So the important thing is to find people willing to serve who fit the positions.”
On the difficulty of finding candidates: Janet acknowledges that this is difficult in HOA's, and raises some relevant points:
"1. Sometimes the reason people don't want to be considered for positions is because of how things are run.
2. Sometimes people are bypassed because they are considered "troublemakers."
3. It is hard to tell how many of the “apathy” problems are really “prejudice” problems as opposed to a lack of willing participants.
4. In this vein, sometimes boards won't go out of our own circle of influence."
She has some recommendations:
"1. Try sending out a letter that is informational about serving on the board telling what the position is, the term, what are the duties of the position, the hours it takes to fill the position, and that someone will train that person. (Be sure there is follow up on that last one).
2. If after doing that there is still no response and the board or nominating committee has made an earnest and genuine effort to find people, then send a ballot out with blanks for those positions and encourage people to write in a name. IF when the ballots are counted and no one gets elected, then the board deals with it at that time. [In Janet’s state, the law provides that board members stay in the office until someone is elected and qualified. So if no one is elected then that board member or officer stays in the position until the next election. Note, most documents in California say this also.]
3. If a person is elected that does not meet the qualifications of that office (no assessments paid or otherwise as in the bylaws) then they are not considered elected because they haven't qualified.
4. Now about a quorum. When sending the ballots out, members should be instructed that if they are not returned and there is no quorum there will have to be another election. This will end up costing them money! Maybe this will get their attention.
5. By reading the information you sent me, HOAs have to send out a mail ballot even though only one person per office is on it. I (Janet) didn't see any exceptions in the law."
6. On qualifications: "The qualifications should be carried over into the election rules [when there are good standing qualifications in the bylaws] and a date that the assessments must be paid, for example, for the candidate’s name to be put on the ballot, even if that date is 35 days prior to the election. That would give those sending out the ballot time to make changes and print a current ballot."
She asks the question, rightly so: “Why would you allow someone to be nominated and put on a ballot who hadn't paid dues and may not pay them by election day? This is confusing and may end up causing problems in the association. The best policy is to have these kinds of things in writing from the beginning.
Janet and I both recognize some of the problems associations are experiencing, such as:
1. HOAs are set up such that volunteers are expected to know what to do to operate an association, without any training or policy manual to follow;
2. In HOAs, power struggles often abound and this deters people from running, especially if they have served and found out that they have no say in anything because of power- happy overbearing people;
3. Sometimes HOAs are so poorly run it causes great divisions with the association and no one wants to get involved.
It is clear that a basic understanding of the democratic process, parliamentary procedure, and
improved communications and relationships could solve many of the problems going on in associations. Whether this alone will solve the apathy problems is yet to be seen.
I urge you to visit http://www.parli.comand see if there is something there for you.
Posted by Beth Grimm at 9:58 PM
What Happens If Owners Do Not Sign The Ballot Envelopes?
Elections in California homeowners associations - more questions. What happens when owners do not sign the ballot envelopes? In their wisdom, the legislators in California passed a law that requires, among other things, a process for voting that requires owners to sign the outside (mailing envelope) that is part of the voting package. That one requirement has raised a number of issues. First but not least, does it mean inspectors need to verify the signature matches a signed list of signatures? Very few associations have such a master list of signatures on file.
I do not believe it does - however, I do believe that the signature needs to be there to count the ballot (the way the law is written). It will provide a means of verification as the person who purportedly submitted the ballot if that for some reason becomes a necessity.
Next question - is there anything the association can do if it comes to light through the inspector(s) that there are several unsigned ballot packages coming in?
The point of an election is to allow owners to "speak" through voting. Unsigned ballot packages cannot be counted. So if the discovery is made ahead of counting the ballots that there are unsigned packages, I see no reason why the board and inspectors together cannot initiate a process to try and correct that problem. The inspectors cannot release the ballots, but they can arrange with the board a place to bring the ballot packages and allow owners to come and sign that did not do so. This process does not involve opening, returning or altering any ballot, and the ballots do not leave the custody of the inspector or inspectors. This process could take place at the annual meeting before ballots are counted, or at some other arranged sitting prior to the meeting date. If the association has a clubhouse ..... perfect location.
Now, what kind of notice should go out? I was asked if the inspectors, who were members of the association, could call the owners. I do not believe that is wise. The notice to owners who did not sign should, I believe, be consistent and equal for all owners in this position. The notice could be mailed to owners who returned unsigned ballots, letting them know about the "signing sitting". A notice could be sent to all owners reminding them to sign all ballots and letting them know that there are some unsigned ballots that could be signed at the "signing sitting", but I do not see this as the best way to handle the matter. I believe sending a letter to all members could confuse them and make all of them wonder if they forgot to sign the envelope.
The law neither bans nor provides this remedy. It comes from the concept of "creative practicality" (or, in more simple terms, fixing what is broken). Remember, the point of the new law is not to stifle the voting process, but to enable and encourage members to vote from their homes. It just happens that the technicalities tend to get in the way.
Posted by Beth Grimm at 9:17 PM
March 10, 2007
May an Association Ban Smoking in a Person's Home?
Smoking has been proven hazardous to the health of the smoker. Second hand smoke has been proven hazardous to the health of those forced to inhale it. Questions that often arise these days in homeowner associations are: (1) May we ban smoking in the common areas? and/or (2) May we ban smoking in the units?
The answer is yes, in some localities under some conditions. This is California. One would think the seminal cases might happen here. But they have not, at least not to the best of my knowledge. However, they have happened.
In Boston, a jury found that heavy smoking were grounds for eviction of the tenants. In 2005, when this judgment came down, the news story by Ralph Ranalli and Jonathan Saltzman, of the Boston Globe reported:
"In a case that tobacco law specialists say is one of the first of its kind in the nation, a Boston Housing Court jury ruled that a South Boston couple could be evicted from their rented water-view loft for heavy smoking, even though smoking was allowed in their lease. The landlord who rented the Sleeper Street unit to Erin Carey and Ted Baar ordered them out within a week last November, after neighbors complained of the smoke odors filtering into their apartments.
Carey and Baar, who each smoke about a pack a day and run an information technology sales business out of the one-bedroom unit, fought the eviction, arguing in court that the converted warehouse's shoddy construction and aging ventilation system were to blame for the wayward odors.
Last Friday, a jury ruled in favor of the landlord and the eviction. Even though the landlord could have written a nonsmoking clause into the lease and didn't, the jury found that the couple's heavy smoking violated a more general clause banning ''any nuisance; any offensive noise, odor or fumes; or any hazard to health.' Although the verdict is not binding on other courts, tobacco law specialists said the decision is one of the nation's first to declare smoking a nuisance serious enough to become grounds for eviction."
In November of 2006, in Golden, Colorado, "The Denver Channel.com" reported: "A judge has upheld a homeowners association's order barring a couple from smoking in the town house they own.
Colleen and Rodger Sauve, both smokers, filed a lawsuit in March after their condominium association amended its bylaws to prohibit smoking.
'We argued that the HOA was not being reasonable in restricting smoking in our own unit, nowhere on the premises, not in the parking lot or on our patio,' Colleen Sauve said.
The Heritage Hills #1 Condominium Owners Association was responding to complaints from the Sauves' neighbors who said cigarette smoke was seeping into their units, representing a nuisance to others in the building.
In a Nov. 7 ruling, Jefferson County District Judge Lily Oeffler ruled the association can keep the couple from smoking in their own home.
Oeffler stated "smoke and/or smoke smell" is not contained to one area and that smoke smell 'constitutes a nuisance.' She noted that under condo declarations, nuisances are not allowed.
The couple now has to light up on the street in front of their condominium building."
This activity across the country, although not binding in any court in California, indicates a possible trend. And many, many, many Californians are sensitive to smoke. It was not that long ago that a bill was introduced in Sacramento that would have provided that allowing smoke to waft through walls could be actionable in the courts. The bill did not survive. But the idea of preventing smokers from being allowed to cause a nuisance that adversely affects others has not.
Posted by Beth Grimm at 10:05 PM
March 6, 2007
May The Association Control The Size of Pets - Namely Dogs?
I get asked a lot of questions about pets. This is one of them. Associations generally should be able to control the size of pets, through the deed restrictions, CC&Rs (which require owner approval if amended) and/or rules (assuming the authority is in one of the recorded or regulatory base documents of the Association or in the law of the jurisdiction). In California, there is a law allowing owners to have a pet. There is an exception in the case of an association that had a pet restriction before the law took effect, and that has not amended any of the governing documents since that date. However, the law allows for reasonable rules.
The question of course, is "what is reasonable?" In California, the burden is on the owner to prove a rule is unreasonable and a pet size rule should be upheld if the association enforces it consistently (and not just against non-board members or their friends) and there is a monitoring method that is fair. Such a rule should not be imposed to target a specific pet because chances are, if the pet was already in the development by the time the size limitation which would otherwise exclude it, the HOA probably has to "grandfather" that pet (let it stay until it moves away or dies).
There is at least one "unreported case" in California upholding a pet weight limitation. "Unreported" means the case cannot be asserted as binding authority for the position the judges took, but it is an indication of how at least one appeallate court felt about weight limits.
Pet weight limits can be difficult to define. What if a pet that is under 25 lbs gets fat in its old age and the Board lets it stay? But the dog next door who weighs 26 lbs but is mean has to go? Why is a weight limit being imposed? Boards can address conduct, barking and aggressive behaviors with other rules. Is it because pets have to be carried by the owner (such as in a high rise trying to avoid problems with pet dander)? If barking is the issue, a loud yappy dog can be a lot more disturbing that a big woof ........ woof. Is it really a breed issue? Some associations prohibit dogs on the insurance "hit" lists (meaning those that cannot be insured against for bites or attacks).
I believe a board can impose a pet size limitation in the right circumstances. But that's always the question. What are they? For that, you will need good legal advice based on the need, facts, existing documents, and circumstances in your own development.
Posted by Beth Grimm at 1:56 PM
March 1, 2007
TOWING - IS A CONTRACT NECESSARY?
Readers are asking - does an HOA need a towing contract?
Apparently, towing companies are resisting contracts, and so thus boards are asking the question as to whether one is needed. Many boards do not understand that a contract already exists whether they get a written contract or not. The question is: does it go far enough to protect the Assn, especially in light of the new towing laws aimed at predatory tow practices?
Although associations are not required to have a written contract, it is highly recommended (by me). Why? Protection for the HOA and its members of course - that is what I am all about.
The "agreement" to allow the tow company in and tow vehicles is present even if not written and implies that a contract exists - they can come in, and they can charge owners for tows. There is no law (and if there is no documentary requirement) requiring it - it works simply because the Tow Company is willing to provide the service without a written contract on an as needed basis. However, if the Tow Co wants to make any charges to the HOA for the tows, without an "agreement" (contract), they would be unable to do that, unless the Association simply acquiesced, which would form an "implied" contract. All mutually beneficial services are defined by some kind of agreement (contract), oral or written.
If the association requires proof of insurance protecting the drivers, things should be okay unless a driver attacks someone on premises or harms someone (like dropping a car on them, intimidating them, or punching them?). The agreements that are made orally or implied, do not cover that sort of thing. And if the employers insurance terminates, the Association becomes a target. The "unwritten" contracts do not cover that either.
And say the tow driver gets beat up on association property by an owner. Without an agreement protecting the HOA, the driver could conceivably sue the HOA. This applies to any vendors who come on the property. The claim might be based on failure to warn of violent propensities or anything else, whether grounded in fact or not. The HOA insurance would likely step in and the HOA might have to pay, especially if the employers insurance is nonexistent or inadequate. With an agreement protecting the association, the company would have to cover the damages and if written to the max, the defense costs of the HOA as well.
All of the above fall outside the other reason HOAs should have a tow contract, and that is because the new laws in California on towing in HOAs is tough - the purpose of it was to attack predatory towing practices, and there are many punishments including monetary damages, fines, and even possible jail time for knowing violations of the law. What HOA wants to assume that kind of liability exposure for acts of the tow company?
The HOA will be responsible for damages or claims related to groundless tows that it authorizes - if a contract says so. Fair enough. But what about groundless tows that a tow company driver does, without the new "general or specific" authorization? Think you are immunized as an HOA? Think again.
So, are you going to listen to the tow companies that say "naw, you don't need a contract?" Or are you going to pay attention to the risk factor and act?
If you want a tow contract, I, of course, write them. In fact, the newsletter I am now working on "California Homeowners Legal Digest" for Jan-Feb 2007 (yes, I am behind) is on this very topic. To obtain either of these, visit the guru at http://www.californiacondoguru.com. See you there!
Posted by Beth Grimm at 2:05 PM