PROTECTING COMMITTEES FROM LIABILITY

PROTECTING COMMITTEES FROM LIABILITY

QUESTION: I know that board members are legally protected but what about committee members (like a rules committee, newsletter committee, finance committee, etc.)? Are they also protected under the Civil and Corporations Code?

ANSWER: Unfortunately not. By statute, board members have a higher level of protection but the same is not true for committee members. They do, however, frequently have protections under the association's governing documents and and its insurance policy. 

Advisory Role. One way to reduce potential liability is to make sure your committees are advisory only. Without decisionmaking authority, they make a much smaller target. Two exceptions to advisory-only committees are executive and architectural committees. The first is made up entirely of directors and the second derives its authority from the governing documents. The surest way to protect all volunteers is for the association to purchase insurance to cover them. 

RECOMMENDATION: Proper D&O Insurance is a must. Make sure your association's policy covers committee members as well as board members. Adopt an ethics policy so committee members know what constitutes proper and improper behavior. And, adopt committee charters so members know they are advisory only. Finally, if your governing documents are silent about protections for committee members, you should consider amending your documents. 

WHEN A DIRECTOR SUES

QUESTION: Our HOA has only five owners and all owners are on the board. Can an owner, under the D&O coverage, sue the board for an issue as an individual owner? My thought is that you can't sue yourself, yet they wear two hats...board member and homeowner. 

ANSWER: Yes, a director can sue his association. Your D&O insurance may deny coverage but it does not prevent him from suing. 

Suing Himself. You're right that, as a practical matter, your fellow director is suing himself when he sues the association. He can do it because, from a legal perspective, he is not suing himself. He is suing a separate legal entity--the association.
ADR. Before your unhappy director can sue, he must first determine if the governing documents require binding arbitration rather than litigation. If so, he must follow the governing documents. If your documents are silent, the plaintiff can go into court. Depending on what he seeks and why, the Davis-Stirling Act may require that he first endeavor to submit the dispute to alternative dispute resolution.

Recusal. During the litigation, the plaintiff director must recuse himself from any discussions or votes related to his lawsuit. If he refuses, the board can form an executive committee (minus the plaintiff) to work with the association's attorney on the lawsuit. If the governing documents prohibit a director from serving while in litigation with the association, the board can vacate his seat.
Insurance. A consideration for the plaintiff is that the association's insurance may refuse to defend. Some insurance policies exclude coverage if one director sues another director. D&O insurance is designed to protect directors from third-party claims, not infighting between directors or claims against current or former directors for imprudent business practices. This is known as an “Insured vs. Insured” exclusion.

Special Assessment. If the carrier denies coverage, the membership could be specially assessed to raise the funds needed to defend against the action. If that happens, the plaintiff may find himself an outcast. He should be careful about pooing where he eats.

RECOMMENDATION: The board should avoid litigation and make every effort to work out their differences.

ALLOCATING WATER BILLS

ALLOCATING WATER BILLS

QUESTION: I rented my condo to a family of six--two adults and four children. The HOA now wants owners to pay for water based on the number of occupants rather than equally as is currently done. Can the HOA legally require me to pay for water based on the number of occupants?

ANSWER: In light of the drought and the unequal usage created by a unit full of renters, allocating expenses based on usage has two advantages for the association: fairness and conservation.

Fairness. On the equity side, why should an elderly widow who lives alone subsidize water for a unit with six renters--especially when the landlord is making money on the rental? The more equitable approach is for each owner to pay their own share of water usage.

Conservation. Making owners pay based on usage also creates an incentive to conserve water. Owners will use less water when the money flowing out of their pocket is tied to the water flowing out of their faucet.

It Depends. Whether the association can change its billing practice depends on its governing documents. If the CC&Rs clearly require that the cost of water must be shared equally regardless of usage, the association must amend its documents before it can change its billing.
Renters. If the CC&Rs are silent on the issue, the association bill owners based on estimated usage. In Watts v. Oak Shores, the court of appeals supported the association's authority to allocate cost. Watts was a landlord whose renters increased the association's expenses. The board estimated those costs and assessed Watts. Watts sued and lost. He then appealed and lost. (He has now petitioned the Supreme Court--we don't know yet whether the court will hear his petition.)

Reasonable Allocation. I believe the principles delineated in the Watts decision have a broader application than just renters. If an association is master metered, it could estimate water usage based on the number of people living in a unit. The court of appeals wrote that:

Nothing in the language of [Civ. Code §5600(b)] requires the exact correlation between the fee assessed and the costs for which it is levied... In some instances, such an exact correlation may be impossible to obtain. In other instances, the costs of studies necessary to obtain an exact correlation may be prohibitive... The most reasonable interpretation of [Civ. Code §5600(b)] is that it requires nothing more than a reasonable good faith estimate of the amount of the fee necessary to defray the cost for which it is levied. (Watts v. Oak Shores.)

According to the California Water Resources Control Board, residential water use averages averages 77 gallons per person per day but ranges from 43 gallons to 427 gallons per person depending on the locale. A map of California published by the New York Times shows water usage around the state. An association could use such numbers to estimate water usage and levy appropriate charges.
RECOMMENDATION: Condominium associations should have legal counsel review their governing documents to see if they can bill owners based on water usage. If not, they need to amend their documents. If documents are silent or allow it, boards should contact their local water board for per person average water usage. In addition, boards should implement additional water conservation by addressing leaks inside owners' units.