|
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!
|
||||||
|
THE LAW OF INTENDED CONSEQUENCES - WHAT A DIFFERENCE A "WORD" MAKES: NO! ON ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 563 by D. Vanitzian, J.D., Arbitrator May
20, 2007
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 existing statute.
ONE WORD!
AT WHAT COST?
My first question:
Why the hell didn't they
have their overpaid so-called legislative analysts
catch that so-called problem when they got their
buddies to vote YES on its passage the first time
around?
My second question:
Is this the bill that
your office was referring to when I asked LAST YEAR
if you and/or your cohorts would consider carrying a
bill to impose PENALTIES AGAINST RECALCITRANT BOARDS
AND THEIR LAWYER ADVISORS, and was told, "oh,
I’m sorry, the Assemblyman already has all the
bills he’s going to carry for next year, you’ll
have to try back in 2008."
Not to put too fine a
point on it, but Assemblyman Villines is carrying a
Bill (Ass. Bill. 563) that USED to read as follows
(in pertinent part):
"has been approved
by the required number of owners, trustees,
beneficiaries, and mortgagees pursuant to Section
66452.10 of the Government Code, the certificate
need ONLY
be signed by those owners, trustees, beneficiaries,
and mortgagees approving the conversion."
Assemblyman
Villines is proposing to DELETE the word
"ONLY" and MOVE IT as follows:
"has been approved
by the required number of owners, trustees,
beneficiaries, and mortgagees pursuant to Section
66452.10 of the Government Code, the certificate
need be signed ONLY
by those owners, trustees, beneficiaries, and
mortgagees approving the conversion."
You say, "what’s
wrong with that?" Let’s
REWIND for one minute . .
. . .
Government
Code Section 66452.10
is located in Article 2 (Tentative Maps) and
addresses: stock cooperative or community apartment
project; conversions to condominium; required number
of favorable votes of owners, trustees or
beneficiaries.
Here’s Government
Code Section 66452.10 as it stands as of May
17, 2007:
"A stock
cooperative, as defined in Section 11003.2 of the
Business and Professions Code, or a community
apartment project, as defined in Section 11004 of
the Business and Professions Code, shall not be
converted to a condominium, as defined in Section
783 of the Civil Code, unless the required number of
(1) owners and (2) trustees or beneficiaries of each
recorded deed of trust and mortgagees of each
recorded mortgage in the cooperative or project, as
specified in the bylaws, or other organizational
documents, have voted in favor of the conversion. If
the bylaws or other organizational documents do not
expressly specify the number of votes required to
approve the conversion, a majority vote of the (1)
owners and (2) trustees or beneficiaries of each
recorded deed of trust and mortgagees of each
recorded mortgage in the cooperative or project
shall be required. Upon approval of the conversion
as set forth above and in compliance with
subdivision (e) of Section 1351 of the Civil Code,
all conveyances and other documents necessary to
effectuate the conversion shall be executed by the
required number of owners in the cooperative or
project as specified in the bylaws or other
organizational documents. If the bylaws or other
organizational documents do not expressly specify
the number of owners necessary to execute the
conveyances or other documents, a majority of owners
in the cooperative or project shall be required to
execute the conveyances and other documents.
Conveyances and other documents executed under the
foregoing provisions shall be binding upon and
affect the interests of all parties in the
cooperative or project. The provisions of Section
66499.31 shall not apply to a violation of this
section."
After reading Government
Code Section 66452.10, IN MY LAY OPINION, it appears
that the LEGAL SIGNIFICANCE OF RELOCATING the word
"ONLY" to its new
position is HUGE.
If that code section is
amended to read as Assemblyman Villines wants, then
ONLY those who APPROVE of the conversion (already a
topic of contention statewide) need sign. It
eliminates ALL OTHER OWNERS from the democratic
process. It also has the potential of creating a
liability for the association, because of its
selective enforcement of that document.
Again, I believe that
this bill FAVORS the LAWYERS and/or THOSE INDUSTRIES
WHO INITIATE CONVERSIONS. Period. IT
HAS THE INTENDED CONSEQUENCE OF DISENFRANCISING ALL
THE MINORITY SHAREHOLDERS WHO DISAGREE.
There is much more to
this than meets the eye. Will save the rest for
later. Does the public want or need Assembly
Bill 563?
In
one word:
NO!
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