|
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 |
June 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!
|
||||||
|
HOW DO OWNERS SPELL L-A-W S-U-I-T? SENATE BILL NO. 127! Another Legislative Bill That Will Subject Owners to Litigation After it passes Copyright 2007 by Donie Vanitzian May
22, 2007
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?
OPEN QUESTION to Senator
Sheila Kuehl from readers to my Los
Angeles Times (co-authored) COLUMN: Will
YOU be there when I am forced to litigate my rights
using THIS BAD BILL THAT YOU THINK IS SOOOOOOO
WONDERFUL!?
If Senator Sheila
Kuehl’s Senate Bill 127 passes, it will subject
innocent buyers, sellers, owners and real estate
salespersons to LITIGATION AND LIABILITY.
This author phoned Ms.
Kuehl's offices for several days. At one
office, I was told: The
Senator is not here. You will have to speak
with someone else.
+Will the Senator
EVER be there?
We're not allowed to
answer that.
+Can I make an
appointment to speak with the Senator, I live in her
district.
I'm afraid the Senator's
calendar is booked up several months in advance, and
you would have to speak with her scheduling person.
+Is that person
there?
No. Is there anything
else I can do for you?
+Yes, can you give
me to someone else?
The person you need to
speak to is "___." She's at a
meeting can you call back in an hour?
+I called back.
That person is still at
a meeting. Call back in 1/2 hour.
+I called back.
That person just stepped
away from his/her desk. Call back in 15 minutes.
+I called back.
That person will be back
in 10 minutes, call back in 10 minutes.
+I called back.
That person just went to
lunch, you will have to call back after 2.pm.
+I called back.
That person just went
into another meeting, would you like to leave a
voice mail.
+I called back.
That person is on
another line, you can hold if you want.
+I was on hold
until she got back to me and said, "This person
will be on the phone for a while you'll have to
leave a voice mail." I asked, can someone
ELSE help me?
The person said,
"No, that is the ONLY person who knows what you
are talking about and handles THAT."
+I called back.
That person is busy
right now, what is it EXACTLY that you WANT?
+I called back.
That person has left for
the day.
+I said, in a
painfully polite voice, "I followed your
directions patiently for the entire day. Do
you have any suggestions as to what I should do
next to be able to speak with someone in your
office?"
The person who had
answered the phone told me, "I don't have to
take that from you" and hung up.
KUEHL’S
SB127 BILL STATES:
"Existing law
requires"
"Existing law
requires"
"Existing law
requires"
"Existing law
requires"
KILL SENATE BILL
NO. 127 OPPONENTS SAY:
*Which "existing
laws" is the Senator referring to AND WHAT do
they "require"?
KUEHL’S
SB127 BILL STATES
"involving an
agent"
KILL SENATE BILL
NO. 127 OPPONENTS SAY:
*Managing Agent?
*Real Estate Agent?
*Buyers Representative
Agent?
*Seller’s
Representative Agent?
*Trustee Agent?
KUEHL’S
SB127 BILL STATES
"be made as soon as
practicable"
KILL SENATE BILL
NO. 127 OPPONENTS SAY:
*WHAT? does THAT MEAN to
a person who is stuck in Escrow with the Escrow
Time-Clock ticking?
*WHAT does THAT MEAN to
a seller who is being sabotaged by their board and
management company using all available legal means
and the association’s money to thwart an otherwise
viable sale?
KUEHL’S
SB127 BILL STATES
"to deliver a copy
of the information required to be disclosed"
KILL SENATE BILL
NO. 127 OPPONENTS SAY:
*HUH? What is the LEGAL
SIGNIFICANCE of "IF" requested?
KUEHL’S
SB127 BILL STATES
"owner within 10
days of the mailing OR delivery of the request, as
specified"
KILL SENATE BILL
NO. 127 OPPONENTS SAY:
*Say WHAT? I certainly
hope that the Senator will be there during that
failed, uh, err, I mean, disastrous, uh, err, I
mean, S-A-B-O-T-A-G-E-D escrow transaction when the
buyer and seller have no alternative other than to
SUE each other.
KUEHL’S
SB127 BILL STATES
"bill would
require, in the case of a sale of real property, or
a sale or a lease with an option to purchase of a
mobilehome or manufactured home involving an agent,
that the disclosures described above be made as soon
as practicable"
KILL SENATE BILL
NO. 127 OPPONENTS SAY:
*Does the bill
"REQUIRE" it or "not"???
*WHAT does "would
require" mean?
KUEHL’S
SB127 BILL STATES
*Check this language out
in Sheila Kuehl’s Senate Bill:
*"REQUIRES" .
. . "AS SOON AS PRACTICABLE"
KILL SENATE BILL
NO. 127 OPPONENTS SAY:
*Where’s the
ENFORCEMENT in THAT?
KUEHL’S
SB127 BILL STATES
"The bill would
require, in the case of a sale of a separate
interest in a common interest development, that the
necessary disclosures be made as soon as practicable
before transfer of title but no later than 10
calendar days after the execution of the purchase
agreement to purchase title to the separate interest
OR execution of a real property sales contract"
KILL SENATE BILL
NO. 127 OPPONENTS SAY:
*It apparently is not
enough for Senator Kuehl to muck up the laws forcing
US to live by them, NOW, she has the opportunity to
not only tie our hands in the "disclosure"
arena, BUT, screws it up further by these additional
CONTINGENCIES on SALES AND PURCHASES.
*How many people out
there have a bleeeeping CLUE, WHAT "AS SOON AS
PRACTICABLE" MEANS?
*How many owners will be
able to win a court case against their Ass. with the
words "ASS SOON AS PRACTICABLE?""
KUEHL’S
SB127 BILL STATES
The bill would require
an association of a common interest development, if
requested by the owner of the separate property
interest, to deliver a copy of the information
required to be disclosed by that owner within 7 days
of the mailing OR delivery of the request.
NOT
ONE OWNER WILL BE ABLE TO ENFORCE CODE SECTION IN
ITS ENTIRETY.
IT
IS, IN FACT, IN THIS AUTHOR’S OPINION: IPSO FACTO
UNENFORCEABLE.
THE
BUYER NEEDS **IT** BEFORE THEY SIGN THE PURCHASE
AGREEMENT!
HERE’S
A COPY OF THE BAD SENATE BILL NUMBER 127 BY SENATOR
KUEHL
SB 127, as amended,
Kuehl. Property transfers: disclosures.
[[Disclosures?
Huh? Anybody catch that?]]
Existing law requires
certain transferors of real property, mobilehomes,
manufactured homes, and separate interests in common
interest developments to make specified disclosures
to transferees as part of their respective
transactions. These disclosures concern
characteristics affecting the property and hazards
to which the property may be subject. Existing law
requires, in the case of a sale of real property,
that these disclosures be made as soon as
practicable before transfer of title. In the case of
a sale or a lease with an option to purchase of a
mobilehome or manufactured home involving an agent,
[WHAT "AGENT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT??]
existing law requires these disclosures [which
disclosures!?] be made as soon as
practicable, [what
does THAT mean?!] but no later than
the close of escrow. In the case of a transfer of a
separate interest in a common interest development,
existing law requires that the disclosures be made
as soon as practicable before transfer of title to
the separate interest or [[[OR
WHAT?] execution of a real property
sales contract. Existing law requires an association
of a common interest development, if requested by
the owner of the separate property interest, to
deliver a copy of the information required to be
disclosed [[HAVE
YOU EVER TRIED TO GET THAT INFORMATION? WHAT ARE YOU
TALKING ABOUT?] by that owner within
10 days of the mailing or [[[OR WHAT?]delivery of
the request, as specified. [[[WHAT’S
THE LEGAL DEFINITION OF EACH OF THESE WORDS!!!]
This bill would require,
in the case of a sale of real property, or a sale or
a lease with an option to purchase of a mobilehome
or manufactured home involving an agent, that the
disclosures described above be made as soon as
practicable before transfer of title but no later
than 10 calendar days after the execution of the
purchase agreement. The bill would require, in the
case of a sale of a separate interest in a common
interest development, that the necessary disclosures
be made as soon as practicable before transfer of
title but no later than 10 calendar days after the
execution of the purchase agreement to purchase
title to the separate interest or execution of a
real property sales contract. The bill would require
an association of a common interest development, if
requested by the owner of the separate property
interest, to deliver a copy of the information
required to be disclosed by that owner within 7 days
of the mailing or delivery of the request. [
Ohhhhh, I see! you mean SOMEONE has to COMPLY with
THIS?]
DISCLOSURES???? OF
WHAT?!
YOU’VE GOT TO BE
JOKING.
GET A GRIP PEOPLE, OUR
TAX DOLLARS ARE PAYING FOR THIS NONSENSE!!!!!
RELATED STORIES 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! THE
LAW OF INTENDED CONSEQUENCES - WHAT A DIFFERENCE A
"WORD" MAKES: NO! ON ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 563 EMERGENCY!
EMERGENCY! OOPS! WE JUST HAD THE MEETING! YOU MISSED
IT!! CAN
YOU OUTSWIM YOUR HOA SHARKS? or will you drown trying? HEY
GRAY PANTHERS! YOU GOT IT WRONG! The
Law of Unintended Consequences: Legislation and HOA
BOD Cause and Effect: Clueless in my CAR Paraphrasing
the LA Times on Defeat of SB670 & Wicked Twin
Witches of the West - SB 127 & AB-980 One
More Near Miss Avoided - Clueless in My CID/HOA Private
Transfer Tax - Good for the Common Interest
Development (HOA/CID) Industry or Good for the
Politicians? How
to Communicate with the CZ Master Association (and
other HOAs) OCR
Paraphrasing in Laguna Woods Village
Letters to the editor Letters-
Unreal State of Real Estate Bills Power
hungry association steals home from mentally ill
person for $540 Assessments. The monthly fees for the
home paid in full for nearly 20 years ago is only $183
a month. Brother tried to pay the money but the board
would not accept it.
|
Advertisement
|
|
|||||
|
|
|||||||
![]() |
The CotoBuzz Journal P.O. Box 154 Trabuco Canyon, CA 92678 (509) 355-8895
Privacy Policy | Need Help? | Contact Us | Administrator: cotobuzz@yahoo.com