The CotoBuzz Journal, Community Journalism

The CotoBuzz Journal

Community Journalism, Newsletters and Blogs Covering South Orange County, CA

The CotoBuzz Journal is a member of Investigative Reporters and Editors (IRE) and NAHJ

August 2007 Issue

We do not make jokes, we simply watch the LA Times, the Orange County Register and the Coto de Caza Board of directors and report the facts!

LETTERS

CALIFORNIA LAW REVENGE COMMISSION PROJECT #TR-855 FUNCTIONS TO DISENFRANCHISE AND PARALYZE DEED-RESTRICTED HOMEOWNERS IN WAYS THEY NEVER IMAGINED

July 23, 2007

IF owners do NOT oppose this frivolous project now, you will be funding your own demise later; and owners must be quick in stopping this so-called Project from moving forward -- Please do not wait to write -- do it now.

(c) 2007 Donie Vanitzian

Please Note: For the purpose of internet publication, I have redacted the letter writer's name. Anyone who wishes to obtain copies of the exhibits that were attached and submitted with the original sent to the California Law Revision Commission, write me directly.

The following letter was given to me by a seasoned real estate broker who is fed up with the impact of bad laws on him, his family, his clients and the public in general. He has lost faith in the trade group that he is a member of, who professes to further the interests of real estate professionals like him, the trade group is California Association of Realtors. Their latest devastating piece of legislation, Assembly Bill 980, is nothing more than a bill that functions as DOUBLE TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION -- it functions to steal big chunks of your equity WITHOUT YOU BEING ABLE TO STOP IT -- and it does so "every time" you buy or sell -- and who knows, even REFINANCE -- and that group is/was/has pushed to make certain that such MONEY WITHDRAWALS FROM YOUR ACCOUNT come directly out of YOUR escrow and that you will NEVER be able to stop it (that’s why they want to pass Assembly Bill 980 and make it the LAW).

By the time owners try to stop the bad legislation it is too late. Many times, owners wait too long to make a difference -- only the massive amounts of opposition letters that are written to these stupid agencies might help us PROTECT OUR HOMES AND ASSETS THAT THESE INDUSTRIES WANT TO STEAL FROM US. That is why, you MUST PLEASE HELP STOP the California Law Revenge Commission from sending their monstrous project over to the California Legislature to be entered into the statute books.

Once that happens, you may not have time to buy, sell, move, and adequately protect your assets from what is about to happen to you. By the way, as if you did not already know, DO NOT BELIEVE ANYTHING THE LEGISLATORS AND THE CALIFORNIA LAW REVISION TELLS YOU. You OWE IT TO YOURSELF, to seek out the TRUTH. Read the track record of the Commission's failure.

You have a chance to make a difference right now! I am urging EVERYONE who reads his letter, to take ONE MINUTE -- and not put it off -- to write the California Law Revenge Commission at the address in the letter and ORDER THEM TO STOP their wasteful project. If you do not stop this project right now, you will be scrambling like crazy once this stupid Commission sends it to our stupid legislature.

........................................................................................................................

Here is the letter:

Mr. Brian Hebert

California Law Revision Commission

3200 5th Avenue

Sacramento, CA 95817

4000 Middlefield Road, Room D-1

Palo Alto, CA 94303-4739

Re: TR-H855 and the CLRC's wholesale rewrite of Davis-Stirling Act

Dear Mr. Hebert,

So there is no misunderstanding what my letter is about, I oppose the above-mentioned California Law Revision Commission project and wholesale rewrite of the Davis-Stirling Act under the guise of TR-H855. In a word, I find the Commission's actions on that topic, "deceitful."

I am also against the California Law Revision Commission's interference with common interest development titleholders and the laws affecting us in general. Please do not try to justify your untenable actions, I for one, am sick of the Commission's condescension toward anyone who disagrees with it. This project has been up your sleeve for some time, apparently waiting for a lull while the public sleeps so you can push your agenda. You are pushing this project through as if you know something the rest of us don't.

I am no fan of the Davis-Stirling Act BUT do not want the California Law Revision Commission to revamp it. Leave it alone. Change the "name" of the "Act" if you have to substantiate your pay checks, but leave the Civil Code Sections pertaining to the present Davis-Stirling Act in place with the same section numbers. This project will not serve the public interest in any way. It will also create a fiscal impact on the State of California the likes of which the Commission, given its prior pattern of incompetence, will no doubt gloss over.

The California Law Revision Commission has misled the public into believing that its actions are warranted and much needed. Contrary to that representation, the Commission is not needed in the area of common interest developments and its mandate, if there is one, should be removed i.e., stripped. In fact, I feel confident in making the statement that with regard to common interest developments, the Commission has done more harm than good.

I've owned my share of condos. I am a Personal Financial Planner, a Registered Representative (Security and Exchange Commission), licensed Insurance Broker, and a Realtor^® Broker of over 20 years. While I specialize in commercial property sales many of my clients are also residential sellers who want to dump their condominiums or other common interest development properties that are subject to homeowner associations.

The majority of buyers continue to contact their Realtor^® well after the purchase. The reason? They had no idea how BAD living and owning in a common interest development really is.

It is difficult enough to try to sell this type of property without the likes of the California Law Revision Commission sticking its nose where it does not belong. I refer specifically to your obsession to interfere, repeal, influence, and/or make recommendations to California's impressionable Legislature on what the laws should and should not be. Do not tell me you don’t do this—because you do.

Your influence and frivolous projects pertaining to common interest developments, I dare say, are responsible for the mess that has been perpetuated by Legislators too lazy to understand what their job is and too overpaid to care about the bad legislation they pass.

Perhaps because of the vacuum it has created for itself, you apparently are unaware of the myriad of books and articles which do not speak highly about the California Law Revision Commission, in fact, even JUDGES denigrate the Commission. I have several Real Estate books, one of which is written by a retired Judge, others are written by attorneys who are Real Estate experts that expose the Commission for what it is and is not. They expose, the laws that do not work and are poorly written, and many of these are inevitably traced back to the novice and uninformed HASTY and impetuous recommendations made and SHOVED DOWN OUR THROATS by the California Law Revision Commission. Some of what the Commission has published to substantiate the bad decisions, is downright embarrassing.

To even contemplate the California Law Revision Commission making a substantial rewrite of the codes that common interest development homeowners are mandated to live by and under, is chilling to say the least, bearing in mind the many past screw ups you and the Commission have been responsible for.

Needless to say, too many of the embarrassing Memorandums that I reference here are over one hundred pages long, therefore, I have only enclosed the pertinent page or two, to which I specifically refer. Just take a look at the ongoing disaster (and it IS a disaster Mr. Hebert) that the California Law Revision Commission has created for deed-restricted owners. NOT ONE of these useless Commission "Recommendations" provides per se penalties against boards of directors, management companies, managers, and so on. You did not give us back our full homestead exemptions so that we might better be able to prevent associations and their advisors and vendors from manipulating the laws and the invoices they claim we owe, from stealing our homes -- especially those that are "free and clear."

You did not prevent foreclosures. You did not prevent sabotage during our escrows. Instead, you took away rights to assign our proxies to our personal representatives, family members, and caretakers. You stole our rights as owners to receive ADEQUATE due notice to be able to attend association board meetings. You took away our rights to receive Minutes of those association business meetings without having to pay an arm and a leg, let alone "beg" for the opportunity to merely "read" the minutes, let alone "receive" them -- and without being made to climb up a telephone poll to seek out where the management company or board decided to "hide the minutes" or "post" it, just to be able to "look" at the damn thing.

What follows, is Memorandum after Memorandum, Study after Study, each more useless than the one before it. To be sure, if anyone's job performance was as poor as the California Law Revision Commission's has been, well, you know what would happen to them.

Frankly, if it were up to me, the California Law Revision Commission would be sued and made to return all the grant money it took from the State -- and give it back to the homeowners.

May 4, 2001, Study H-851, Memorandum 2001-03 "Nonjudicial Dispute Resolution Under CID Law: Jurisdiction of Small Claims Court."

"This memorandum reviews the existing law governing jurisdiction of the small claims court and examines the suitability of the small claims process for dispute resolution in the common interest development context. It concludes with possible revisions of the law governing small claims jurisdiction that the Commission may wish to pursue."

May 3, 2001, Study H-851, Memorandum 2001-44, "Nonjudicial Dispute Resolution Under CID Law: Role of Attorney General."

May 4, 2001, Study H-851, Memorandum 2001-43, "Nonjudicial Dispute Resolution Under CID Law: Jurisdiction of Small Claims Court."

Comment: Take a look at the "promise" and resulting mess that the California Law Revision Commission created in this memorandum.

May 10, 2001, Study H-851, First Supplement to Memorandum 2001-42, "Nonjudicial Dispute Resolution Under CID Law: General Approach."

Comment: Despite the warnings from Donie Vanitzian, the California Law Revision Commission failed to close the loopholes she wrote of, and failed, to fix the problems. In that Exhibit, Ms. Vanitzian states "There should be a moratorium on new CID legislation."

The California Law Revision Commission's response to her:

"The staff notes that the Commission's position as always been that the fact that the Commission is studying a topic should NOT be used in the interim as an EXCUSE to DERAIL needed legislation. Unfortunately, we believe the Commission’s study of CID law is being used as an argument by opponents of bills seeking to defeat the bills."

June 14, 2001, Study H-851, Memorandum 2001-55, "Nonjudicial Dispute Resolution Under CID Law: Due Process in Association Rulemaking and Decisionmaking."

August 6, 2001, Study H-850, Memorandum 2001-63, "Common Interest Development law: Structure of Davis-Stirling Act."

"The Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act is found at Civil Code Sections 1350-1376. It is an undifferentiated mass of 44 sections, some of them many pages in length. While the sections tend to follow a roughly logical sequence, locating material within the body of the Davis-Stirling Act is a challenge. . . . [It is] hard to work with . . . may also be a major cause of complaints that the statute fails to deal with a particular issue. . .The staff thinks it would be helpful to provide a general organizational structure to the Davis-Stirling Act. This could be done simply by adding descriptive chapter and article headings to the statute without touching the body of the statute. no renumbering or rearranging of sections would be required. We would add a constructional provision to make clear that the headings that are added do not affect the interpretation or meaning of the sections."

Comment: Imagine that! The Commission "would add a constructional provision to make clear that the headings that are added do not affect the interpretation or meaning of the sections." That's a tough one to do. Did the Commission require high school diplomas for that accomplishment?

December 21, 2001, Study H-851, Memorandum 2002-9, "Nonjudicial Dispute Resolution Under CID Law: Procedural Fairness in Association Rulemaking and Decisionmaking (DRAFT of Tentative RECOMMENDATIONS)."

April 12, 2002, Study H-851, Memorandum 2002-24, "Nonjudicial Dispute Resolution Under CID Law: Procedural Fairness in Association Rulemaking and Decisionmaking (DRAFT of Tentative RECOMMENDATIONS)."

"[T]he Commission reviewed a staff draft tentative recommendation proposing the CREATION of STATUTORY PROCEDURES TO GOVERN ASSOCIATION rulemaking and association review of proposed alterations of separate interest property. . .".

Comment: It must be a very cumbersome task for the Commission to review its own staff recommendations

Then the ultimate mother of inefficiency lands:

May 2002, #H-850, 851, "California Law Revision Commission Tentative Recommendation, Organization of Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act; Procedural Fairness in Association Rulemaking and Decisionmaking."

Comment: Enclosed please see page 9 of that same document. Look familiar to anyone? It appears that the Commission has been down this same road before.

November 18, 2002, Study H-851, Memorandum 2002-60, "Nonjudicial Dispute Resolution Under CID Law: Procedural Fairness in Association Rulemaking and Decisionmaking (DRAFT of Tentative RECOMMENDATIONS)."

Comment: Enclosed please see page 15 of that same document. Look familiar to anyone?

November 27, 2002, Study H-851, Memorandum 2002-55, "Nonjudicial Dispute Resolution Under CID Law: Procedural Fairness in Association Rulemaking and Decisionmaking (DRAFT of Tentative RECOMMENDATIONS)."

Comment: Enclosed please see page 16 of that same document. Look familiar to anyone?

May 5, 2003, Study H-851, Memorandum 2003-18, "Alternative Dispute Resolution Under CID Law (Comments on Tentative RECOMMENDATION)."

Comment: Wasn't that where the California Law Revision Commission proposed an "Information Center?" What a total waste of time and money spent on this frivolous useless, project of yours.

June 2, 2003, Study H-851, Memorandum 2003-23, "Procedural Fairness in CID Rulemaking and Decisionmaking: Issues on AB 512 (Bates)."

Comment: How is it the California Law Revision Commission can get "involved" in something like this! Your mandate is supposed to be "LIMITED."

July 24, 2003, Study H-851, Memorandum 2003-31, "Alternative Dispute Resolution Under CID Law (Comments on Tentative RECOMMENDATION)."

October 31, 2003, Study H-852, Memorandum 2003-37, "Common Interest Development Law: Uniform Common Interest Ownership Act."

Comment: While homeowners have been accusing the California Law Revision Commission of underhanded dealings that favor the industry, this particular Memorandum hit home.

November 7, 2003, Study H-851, Memorandum 2003-40, "Common Interest Development Law: CID Information Center."

Comment: The California Law Revision Commission recommended this BAD LAW that all consumers would have to live with.

March 30, 2004, Study H-853, Memorandum 2004-20, "State Oversight of Common Interest Developments (Discussion of Issues)."

"The Commission has decided to investigate the possibility of establishing a state agency to oversee common interest developments and assist in the resolution of CID disputes."

April 8, 2004, Study H-851, Memorandum 2004-23, "Common Interest Development Law: AB 1836 (Harman); AB 2376 (Bates)."

Comment: Here we go again. Homeowners are pawns on the playing board of the California Law Revision Commission.

June 2, 2004, Study H-851, Second Supplement to Memorandum 2004-27, "2004 Legislative Program: Common Interest Development Law."

Comment: The California Law Revision Commission is fooling no one. Knowing no such specialty exists at the California State Bar, YOU keep referring to "Common Interest Development LAW," for and bogus "restructuring" to accomplish what industry attorneys want from you--that is, create a specialty in "common interest developments " so that association attorneys can then flog that specialty to death and charge more. In that way, you would diminish the pool of available GOOD lawyers, prevent other lawyers that would otherwise assist homeowners, and cause the specialist lawyers to BUMP UP THEIR FEES. It appears that the California Law Revision Commission is nothing more than a FULL EMPLOYMENT ACT FOR LAWYERS. The Commission appears to be assisting the industry to create a specialty where none need exist.

August 9, 2004, Study H-853, Memorandum 2004-39, "State Assistance to Common Interest Developments (Staff Draft)."

"The Commission has directed the staff to prepare a draft proposal for creation of a common interest development oversight agency."

Comment: Here, the California Law Revision Commission continues in its finest form to create a bureaucratic nightmare for everyone but itself. The Commission has failed to successfully implement ANY of the items it undertook prior to this date. Yet, it now directs its staff to perform more frivolous gymnastics for no other reason than to substantiate its grant money. I say this, because to date, you have not in any meaningful manner helped my profession and you have absolutely screwed up the laws for people like me that are forced to try to live under them while not being able to adequately protect my assets because of you.

September 6, 2004, Study H-853, Second Supplement to Memorandum 2004-39, "State Assistance to Common Interest Developments (Staff Draft)."

"Ms. Vanitzian believes that . . . (2) [a]ny state oversight of common interest developments should be within the Department of Corporations. Note that this suggestion is based in part on Ms. Vanitzian’s mistaken belief that the Commission is proposing that all homeowners associations be required to incorporate."

Comment: While the California Law Revision Commission may not have come right out and influenced the California Legislature to do what Ms. Vanitzian prophetically saw some time ago, the Commission's influence and back door to legislation has all but accomplished exactly what she feared would happen -- through the use of "words." No doubt what the Commission would likely call it, "technical changes."

November 18, 2004, Study H-851, First Supplement to Memorandum 2004-47, "2004 Legislative Program: Technical Follow-Up."

Comment: One need only take a look at the fiasco and mish-mash that the California Law Revision Commission calls "technical follow-up" to understand the trouble owners are in, will be in, and is yet to come.

March 2, 2005, Study H-853, Memorandum 2005-10, "State Assistance to Common Interest Developments (Staff Draft Recommendations)."

Comment: Here, the California Law Revision Commission is so bored and uninformed they have to pull information from Las Vegas, Nevada (of all places) and Florida (a worse hell than California, if that is even possible). The Commission is looking outside this State for answers! That's as bad as a politician campaigning outside of his District when he's running for a local office.

March 7, 2005, Study H-850, Memorandum 2005-3, "Common Interest Development Law: Catalog of Issues."

"When the Commission first began its study of common interest development law [there is no such thing], it decided to put a PRIORITY on IMPROVING nonjudicial approaches to resolving CID disputes.." (citations are omitted)

Comment: Interesting that the California Law Revision Commission has an ego so large, it would even take credit for something as bad as that.

"The purpose of this memorandum is to provide a basis for deciding which CID issues to study next."

Comment: Running out of topics to substantiate taking grant money? The Commission's statement is further proof that it creates work for itself unnecessarily. If the Commission has nothing left to study, why don't they just drop it! Save the taxpayers some money and angst. Furthermore, "why isn't it up to those who are most affected by [poor] decisions made by the likes of those at the California Law Revision Commission are making for us?"

May 6, 2005, Study H-855, Memorandum 2005-18, "Statutory Clarification and Simplification of CID Law (Discussion of Issues)."

ad nauseam, "Common interest developments are governed by a complex body of law."

Comment: What the California Law Revision Commission fails to alert the public is that the law is complex because the Commission and California Legislators prefer it that way. In other words, its the same old California Law Revision Commission blah, blah, blah.

"CID law must be understood and applied by directors . . ".

Comment: That statement is simultaneously profound and idiotic. No thanks to the California Law Revision Commission who at that point in 2005, had been wanking for over FIVE YEARS, with nothing to show for it.

September 19, 2005, Study H-855, Memorandum 2005-32, "Statutory Clarification and Simplification of CID Law: Member Rights."

"In this study, the Commission is working on the reorganization and simplification of common interest development law."

Comment: Still apparently lost and looking for the road, the California Law Revision Commission just doesn’t seem to get it right, but can’t help itself in taking the State’s grant money.

February 8, 2006, Study H-855, Memorandum 2006-4, "Statutory Clarification and Simplification of CID Law: Association Governance."

"In this study, the Commission is working on the reorganization and simplification of common interest development law."

Comment: The California Law Revision Commission still fails to pick a lane and still offers NO meaningful avenue for titleholders to pursue to protect their individual assets left at the mercy of unscrupulous boards of directors and their advisors. Here, the Commission just doesn't get it.

January 31, 2006, Study H-853, Memorandum 2006-12, "Common Interest Development Ombudsperson Pilot Project: Legislative Update."

"The Commission will need to decide whether to ratify those changes."

Comment: Really? Why so? Why is it that the California Law Revision Commission has the AUTHORITY to RATIFY ANYTHING? This Commission is acting outside its statutory scope, and owners are paying a dear price for that.

May 25, 2006, Study H-855, Memorandum 2006-25, "Statutory Clarification and Simplification of CID Law: Association Governance and Dispute Resolution."

"In this study, the Commission is working to reorganize and simplify common interest development statutory law. The intention is to make CID law easier to understand and use by improving its presentation and resolving ambiguities and conflicts."

Comment: Why don't you tell readers the truth. The Commission has failed at all other attempts to infiltrate our laws with industry propaganda, so you now want to try it again while you are still on the government’s payroll. Frankly, I am sick and tired of paying your salaries. Your worthless "projects" are, and have been, disastrous for deed-restricted property owners. How many times can you simplify "simplification?" What you are really doing has nothing to do with "simplification" but it has everything to do with "complication."

Your intent now, is to disorient those owners and real estate professionals who must perform their own due diligence in assisting themselves and their clients, by, using your words "making CID law easier to understand by improving its presentation and resolving ambiguities and conflicts." Look at the preposterousness of that statement, seriously, how does one LEGALLY make a LAW easier to understand by improving its presentation? To do so, you must CHANGE THE LAW -- which, I dare say, is NOT THE COMMISSION'S MANDATE TO DO. THAT, Mr. Hebert, is why the public thinks the Commission is disingenuous and deceitful. Mr. Hebert, do us all a favor -- keep your EASY "improvements" to yourself and let the owners be the judge of "presentation" -- we've seen what the Commission has done to resolve "ambiguities and conflicts," which I might add THEY CREATED, and we are not impressed by any means. We do not need you to keep wanking away at reorganization, a kindergartner could do that and they could do it better. We want you to leave it alone. If you didn't get the message, we're sick of the Commission and its self-indulgence at our expense.

August 8, 2006, Study H-855, Memorandum 2006-33, "Statutory Clarification and Simplification of CID Law: Discussion of Issues."

"In this study, the Commission is working to reorganize and simplify common interest development statutory law. The intention is to make CID law easier to understand and use by improving its presentation and resolving ambiguities and conflicts. Most of the improvements in the proposed law will be technical. Some noncontroversial substantive improvements will also be included."

Comments: To be sure, the California Law Revision Commission has already screwed up the Code of Civil Procedure, the Evidence Codes, Mediation code sections, Probate Codes, and a host of others. You probably don't know, so you don't care. But, you should know, the choice of words "screwed up" were not from me, but from my legal friends who are stuck trying to work around the damage that the Commission is responsible for causing. The Commission needs to be stopped and they need to stopped right now. Not tomorrow. Not next week. Not in a month. But now! Please understand this, we are in no way interested in your so-called "noncontroversial substantive improvements" because we have come to learn that's just a bunch of hot air industry rhetoric for "we couldn’t get this stuff in through the normal channels so we're sneaking it in here."

Would it not be easier to merely not sell the property in a common interest development, but to instead ask for buyers to merely hand over their bank accounts and then cut their losses by walking away but to be sure to leave their money behind. In effect, that is what happens when one purchases a deed-restricted property, except they cannot merely walk away because of a myriad of exaggerated and unsubstantiated hostage fees; and sabotage by boards and management companies. Might it be more truthful to warn buyers that they will be tortured in ways unimaginable and by a variety of sources as long as they continue to own in a common interest development. Maybe you can add that to your proposed "noncontroversial substantive improvements." What exactly is the legal definition of "noncontroversial substantive improvements" and WHY do YOU need to DO THAT? You see Mr. Hebert, your report is beginning to smell worse than a dead fish.

August 21, 2006, Legis Prog., Memorandum 2006-13, "2006 Legislative Program: Status of Bills."

Comment: This particular publication should have nothing to do with the California Law Revision Commission and the CLRC should have nothing to do with those bills. It is the job of the Legislature to make public those items, not the CLRC.

January 16, 2007, Study H-855, Memorandum 2007-4, "Statutory Clarification and Simplification of CID Law: Member Elections."

Comment: Just who the hell does the California Law Revision Commission think it is? No one with a brain could possibly take these words together in the same sentence seriously: "intention is to make CID law easier to understand and use by improving its presentation and resolving ambiguities and conflicts." Mr. Hebert, if you could hear what my clients are saying about the Commission, let alone the California Legislature, you might seriously want to rethink using those words in the same sentence. The Commission's dumbing-down of the laws affecting how I live in my home, that have already been watered down to the extent that as an owner I cannot use ONE of them EFFECTIVELY (and believe me I have TRIED) is almost unconscionable. Why? Because the Commission continues to screw this up for us even today. With all due respect Mr. Hebert, I am no longer interested in what your Commission's "intent" is. The Commission has proven its colours several times over, and it is unimpressive what it has managed to destroy. I feel comfortable saying, the public has very little faith in the California Law Revision Commission.

January 19, 2007, Study J-506, Memorandum 2007-2, "Civil Discovery Improvements: Subpoenaed Consumer Records."

Comment: I refer the public to this particular Memorandum for a reason. I do not want the public, or new deed-restricted owners to think that the laws the California Law Revision Commission influences with regard to common interest developments are an "island." Laws like the one under the referenced Memorandum have a devastating effect on deed-restricted property owners, but the Commission just doesn't care. One of the reasons you don't care, is because you FAIL to perform adequate research, not unlike California's Senators and Assemblypersons. I have watched researches track down a law, so poorly written, only to find its genesis was the California Law Revision Commission. The Commission is all over the map, all over the road, and they are road hogs, mowing down anyone in their way. It is evident through its actions, that the Commission does not care who they destroy in the interim and they do not care what it costs the public.

April 18, 2007, Study H-855, Fourth Supplement to Memorandum 2007-4, "Statutory Clarification and Simplification of CID Law: Member Elections."

Comment: It is so abundantly clear that the California Law Revision Commission has failed miserably in whatever it is that you are supposed to be doing. The Exhibits in this Memorandum, are damning to you. Further, your waffling in not answering and in not being held accountable, inasmuch as palming off the responsibility for such bad laws onto those who "were responsible for authoring them" is unacceptable.

June 1, 2007, Study H-855, Memorandum 2007-24, "Statutory Clarification and Simplification of CID Law (Staff Draft Tentative Recommendations)."

Comment: The California Law Revision Commission has managed to worsen an already bad situation. I don’t think I've seen anything as blatantly incompetent as this in a long time. Let me see if I understand your intent, the Commission wants to simply the laws for themselves? Is that it? Or do you want to simply the laws to make it easier to sue and destroy homeowners? Which is it really?

June 21, 2007, Study H-855, Second Supplement to Memorandum 2007-24, "Statutory Clarification and Simplification of CID Law (Preliminary Part)."

"The attachment to this memorandum is a staff draft of the narrative preliminary part for the proposed reorganization of the Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act."

Comment: History bears out, that the Commission's projects are nothing but busy work -- is that the best you could do? Go back in the statutes and read the trite language put forth by the California Law Revision Commission in an attempt to substantiate its "busy work." Look at how many repeals it was responsible for. Look at how many laws had to be rewritten because of poor recommendations, most made for no other reason than to placate special interests and industry. The Commission's reorganization is ridiculous. It disenfranchises every titleholder in the State who has spent a lifetime coming to understand the laws as they exist now.

To date, every law that the California Law Revision Commission has been involved with, has done NOTHING to assist residential deed-restricted owners in any meaningful way.

NOT ONE California Code Section has been without its flaws, loopholes, and crossovers. NOT ONE Code Section has benefited the titleholder whose assets are at risk. NOT ONE Code Section has been self-explanatory to the extent a judge would be able to understand the damn thing. (and don't tell me they understand it, I've been there. Done that. They don't have a bloody clue) BUT, almost every Code Section provides attorney fees for the association; diverts owners into side shows of arbitration, mediation, requests for resolution, meet and confer nonsense--all prejudice the OWNER. All, regardless of what the Commission wants to convince itself of, are costly to titleholders in ways the Commission will never understand. The word "homeowner" is barely used in any of the Code Sections, instead, the Commission neutralizes all titleholders by diminishing not only their miniscule rights but their abilities to be able to protect themselves, their families, and their assets--while at the same time building in protections for errant boards, their co-conspirators, and advisors.

Mr. Hebert, you and that so-called Commission of yours, have not been helpful to homeowners. You have a lot to answer for, and frankly, you and the rest of the "Commission" should truly be ashamed at the utter waste of taxpayer funds expended to all but demolish, demoralize, and handicap deed-restricted homeowners.

Thank you for your time.

RELATED STORIES

Homeowner Association (HOA) Lawyer FactoidsThe Davis-Stirling Act is a part of the California Civil Code. In the Davis-Stirling Act:

The term "attorney fees" is codified/mandated: 22 times.
The term "homeowner" is merely mentioned: 3 times

PART II: KEEP FILING CALIFORNIA STATE BAR COMPLAINTS AGAINST ERRANT ATTORNEYS - BUT ESPECIALLY HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION ATTORNEYS-- Make the Bar Care!
Lets spare each other the niceties of: ?there are good ones and there are bad ones,? because we already know that -- and -- this article is not about that. She then says with a cheeky little grin, ?ok, ok yes, there are some good lawyers out there.?

Mirror, mirror on the wall, who is the fairest gladiator of them all?
As I stood atop the Roman Colosseum during a recent trip, emotionally gripped by its horrific history, I couldn?t help but make the connection between the ancient gladiator and my role as in-house attorney,?.. For starters, lawyers are often referred to...

Management company's tape-recording tactic puts homeowners at risk
Question: Because our management company has been sued before, it has a policy of recording all incoming and outgoing phone calls. Before a management employee answers the phone, there is an automatic announcement warning callers they are being recorded....

Of Trial Lawyers, the AAJ and the Democratic Party
The National College of Advocacy and AAJ Education maintain two distinct programs that recognize AAJ lawyer member efforts in pursuit of advanced legal learning and professional development?the Achievement Recognition Program and Advanced Studies in Trial...

Laguna Woods Village CC&Rs, What CC&Rs? I Got Your CC&Rs Right Here!
Coto de Caza is not the only place where the board of directors consistently either disregard the civil code, governing documents (Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions - CC&Rs) or even the moral code.

What is better in HOA Management? Transparency and Accountability or Feel Good?May 22, 2007
Mostly as a result of the Enron and Worldcom scandals, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 known as the Public Company Accounting Reform and Investor Protection Act of 2002 and commonly called SOX; was enacted to provide business executives with less wiggle...

HOW DO OWNERS SPELL L-A-W S-U-I-T? SENATE BILL NO. 127!X
This author asks WHERE ARE THE PENALTIES AGAINST MANAGEMENT COMPANIES AND BOARDS? WHAT?S THE PENALTY FOR BREAKING THE LAWS THAT THESE LEGISLATORS ARE PASSING?

Two of the Worst & Most Detrimental Laws to Hit California are Sponsored by None Other than: California Association of Realtors (R) The Gold is Gone --No more gold in the Golden State!
Dear Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger,
SHATZI! PLEASE REMEMBER YOUR PROMISE TO US. Please listen to the people who support you and look to you to help us! When you first began buying property in California NO ONE told you what you could or could not do...

THE LAW OF INTENDED CONSEQUENCES - WHAT A DIFFERENCE A "WORD" MAKES: NO! ON ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 563
It apparently does not matter that titleholders with a vested interest in their property cannot get their legislators to carry legislation to help US, but, they can waste taxpayer funds by preventing the bills WE WANT and NEED by CHANGING *ONE* WORD in an...

EMERGENCY! EMERGENCY! OOPS! WE JUST HAD THE MEETING! YOU MISSED IT!!
So THIS is what the Senate calls an "Open Meeting." How many Open Meetings have THEY been to? Obviously not many. ROTFLMAO!

CAN YOU OUTSWIM YOUR HOA SHARKS? or will you drown trying?
Owning, let alone living in an HOA is a tough JOB and requires you be physically fit, possess a certain sophistication of the processes, and have the character let alone stamina, that allows you to be persistent in a manner that indescribable to REAL...

HEY GRAY PANTHERS! YOU GOT IT WRONG!
(c) D. Vanitzian
May 16, 2007The Gray Panthers are on record as SUPPORTING A BAD BAD BAD BAD BILL: Senate Bill Number 948. SHAME ON YOU. Where the heck are you getting your information from?

The Law of Unintended Consequences: Legislation and HOA BOD Cause and Effect: Clueless in my CAR
Coming off a most improbable but successful campaign to defeat SB 670 author and HOA advocate Vanitizian thanks supporters making a connection between the quality of legislation being passed in Sacramento, and the quality of life in most homeowners...

Paraphrasing the LA Times on Defeat of SB670 & Wicked Twin Witches of the West - SB 127 & AB-980
Taking a page out of the OC Register?s ?paraphrased reporting?, an article written by LA Times staff writer Diane Weder titled ?Bill to limit transfer fee founders?, published appropriately on May 13, 2007, quotes the president of the statewide Realtors...

Private Transfer Tax - Good for the Common Interest Development (HOA/CID) Industry or Good for the Politicians?
When we received our copy of the report that the California Association of Realtors (CAR) used to Sponsor and help draft transfer fees, we were confused. Given that Vanitzian has become an icon in Sacrament (some say a thorn in the legislature's side),...