Wed, 16 May 2012
On May 2nd, CAI urged the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) to avoid creating a second, conflicting national standard governing community association transfer fees.
In 2010, FHA established a policy that all transfer fees violate its program rules and guidelines. This decision, which was taken without any examination of long-standing legal principles or understanding of market impact, has not been uniformly enforced. Read more… Wed, 16 May 2012
Affindi “Al” Lewis
As the mercury rises and summer quickly approaches, people begin to spend more time outside at the pool and at backyard BBQs. However, local animal species also become more active during the summer months in their search for food and water. Everyone enjoys Arizona’s local desert species--but what are an association’s responsibilities when wild animals venture onto a community association’s common areas? This issue involves three distinct concepts: (1) member health and safety, (2) common area maintenance and (3) nuisance.
Associations and their Boards have a general duty to reasonably protect the health and safety of residents. The primary case concerning this duty is Martinez v. Woodmar IV Condominiums Homeowners Ass’n, 189 Ariz. 206, 207-08, 941 P.2d 218, 219-20 (1997). In this Arizona Supreme Court case, the Court held that associations have a duty much like a landlord when it comes to protecting residents on its common areas from known dangers. The Martinez case involved known gang activity in the association’s common area parking lot, and the association’s failure to provide adequate security within the common areas. With regard to animals, associations generally have a duty to take action if the association knows that wild animals (such as territorial animals like mountain lions or bobcats or bears) are posing an objective threat to residents/invited guests on the common areas. This may require contacting game and fish officials about removal or more serious action. In most cases, the association does not have a duty to prevent the occasional javelina or coyote from roaming across a common area.
Most associations have an obligation to maintain, repair and replace the common areas within the association. If wild animals or other pests (javelina, termites, roof rats, pigeons) cause serious damage to the common areas, the association may have a duty to take action. Depending on the association’s documents, the association may have a duty to repair the damage and mitigate the risk of further damage. However, generally these types of issues are dealt with by preventative measures of some type, such as hiring a pest control company to spray the common areas, adding fencing, etc.
Typically, most association governing documents also require the association to protect the community from nuisances. This covers everything from barking dogs and loud parties to obnoxious neighbors. However, wild animals can become a nuisance to a community. That being said, whether wild animals are a nuisance to a community is a fact intensive question. Attacks on residents, attacks on pets, destruction of property and other various facts would go into a legal analysis of whether wild animals are posing a nuisance to a community and if the association has a duty to take action.
While summer may bring out more wild animals, communities and their residents can take measures to help reduce the likelihood of the animals becoming a problem. Advising residents to not keep food and water outside will reduce the likelihood that wild animals will linger in the community. Further, preventative pest control measures can prevent and lessen damage to common areas. So, to the extent your association is addressing an issue with wild animals, remember that case law and your governing documents may apply. Take action before your association becomes a “zoo”. For further information, contact Affindi “Al” Lewis or another attorney in our firm. Tue, 08 May 2012
Mr. Dick Pruess, long-time CAI member and chair of California’s Legislative Action Committee, told federal lawmakers that association homeowners suffer when lenders delay foreclosures, allowing delinquent owners to remain in their properties.
The U.S. House of Representatives Financial Services Committee asked CAI to testify on a plan to sell real estate owned (REO) held by mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to private investors. The federal agency that oversees Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is testing a program that will sell large numbers of REO to investors who must agree to rent the properties for a minimum of three years. CAI was asked to share how bulk sales of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac REO would impact community associations and homeowners. Read more... |