BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    



                                                                  AB 1836
                                                                  Page  1

          CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS
          AB 1836 (Harman)
          As Amended July 6, 2004
          Majority vote
           
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
          |ASSEMBLY:  |76-0 |(May 20, 2004)  |SENATE: |37-0 |(August 12,    |
          |           |     |                |        |     |2004)          |
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
            
           Original Committee Reference:    H. & C.D.   

           SUMMARY  :   Enacts recommendations by the California Law Revision  
          Commission (CLRC) revising the requirements and process for  
          alternative dispute resolution used by homeowner associations  
          and homeowners.

           The Senate amendments  :

          1)Make minor technical non-substantive changes.

          2)Add double joining language to avoid a conflict with AB 2376  
            (Bates), pending in the Senate.

           AS PASSED BY THE ASSEMBLY  , this bill:

          1)Required a fair and reasonable process be provided internally  
            by an association for members and the board to resolve  
            disputes through a meet and confer mechanism not requiring a  
            neutral third party.

          2)Required that in order for a meet and confer process to be  
            deemed fair and reasonable it include the following:

             a)   The right for either an association or a homeowner to  
               invoke the process in writing.  However, a homeowner may  
               refuse a request to meet and confer but an association may  
               not refuse;

             b)   The procedure must provide prompt deadlines;

             c)   A resolution that is not in conflict with the law or  
               governing documents is binding on the association;

             d)   Allow for the homeowner and the association to explain  








                                                                  AB 1836
                                                                  Page  2

               their positions;

             e)   The right of appeal by the homeowner to the board of the  
               association; and,

             f)   No fee shall be charged to the member.

          3)Required a party attempt to submit their dispute to  
            alternative dispute resolution prior to filing suit if they  
            are seeking declaratory, injunctive or writ relief or for that  
            relief in conjunction with a claim of damages less than  
            $5,000.

          4)Defined alternative dispute resolution as mediation,  
            arbitration, conciliation or other nonjudicial procedure  
            involving a neutral third party.  The form may be binding or  
            nonbinding at the choice of the parties involved.

          5)Required alternative dispute resolution prior to filing suit  
            for any action to enforce the Davis- Stirling Common Interest  
            Development Act (Davis-Stirling Act), Nonprofit Mutual Benefit  
            Corporation Law (NMBCL), or the governing documents of the  
            association.

          6)Required that in order to initiate the process of alternative  
            dispute resolution any party may serve all other parties with  
            a Request for Resolution that includes:

             a)   A brief description of the dispute and a request for  
               alternative dispute resolution;

             b)   A notice that the receiving party is required to respond  
               within 30 days or the request will be deemed denied; and, 

             c)   A copy of the articles enacted by this bill establishing  
               the process for alternative dispute resolution.

          7)Required a Request for Resolution to be by personal delivery,  
            first class mail, express mail, fax, or other means that would  
            reasonably be assumed to notify the receiving party.

          8)Provided that a court may take into account a party's prior  
            refusal for requested alternative dispute resolution when  
            determining the amount of an award in a subsequent suit.









                                                                  AB 1836
                                                                  Page  3

          9)Required homeowner associations to provide annual notice that  
            includes a summary of the association's internal dispute  
            resolution process.

           FISCAL EFFECT  :  None

           COMMENTS  :  This bill reorganizes the alternative dispute  
          resolution processes and procedures contained in the  
          Davis-Stirling Act and expands the scope of the disputes to  
          which alternative dispute resolution processes and procedures  
          must or can be applied within common interest developments.  The  
          author's office states that this bill was introduced to enact  
          recommendations made by CLRC. 

          A common interest housing development is characterized by:  1)  
          separate ownership of dwelling space coupled with an undivided  
          interest in the common area; 2) covenants, conditions, and  
          restrictions that limit use of both the common area and separate  
          ownership interests; and, 3) administration of common property  
          by a homeowners association.

          Two tiers prior to court action:  This bill establishes a  
          two-tier process to address disputes prior to a party pursuing  
          enforcement through the courts.  The first step is an informal  
          meet and confer process that seeks to encourage personal  
          communication between a homeowner and their board.  In most  
          cases disputes have gone beyond this step but CLRC argues that  
          some associations need these basic ground rules.  The meet and  
          confer process encourages communication and does not bind any  
          party to a decision merely by the fact that they agree to meet  
          and confer.  This procedure is designed to be a no cost process  
          that does not call for a third party.

          The second step reforms and strengthens the existing process for  
          alternative dispute resolution.  Specifically, alternative  
          dispute resolution is expanded to those actions seeking to  
          enforce the Davis-Stirling Act or NMBCL.  This means that any of  
          the provisions of law in dispute ranging from requirements that  
          financial documents be made public, as required by AB 104  
          (Lowenthal), Chapter 375, Statutes of 2003, or restrictions on  
          pets (Civil Code Section 1360.5), shall endeavor to submit the  
          issue to alternative dispute resolution prior to pursuing court  
          action.










                                                                  AB 1836
                                                                  Page  4

           Analysis Prepared by  :    Jay Barkman & Hugh Bower / H. & C.D. /  
          (916) 319-2085


                                                               FN: 0006873