BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    �






           SENATE TRANSPORTATION & HOUSING COMMITTEE       BILL NO: ab 771
          SENATOR MARK DESAULNIER, CHAIRMAN              AUTHOR:  butler
                                                         VERSION: 6/20/11
          Analysis by:  Mark Stivers                     FISCAL:  no
          Hearing date:  June 28, 2011



          SUBJECT:

          Common interest developments:  provision of sale-related 
          documents

          DESCRIPTION:

          This bill requires a common interest development to provide an 
          estimate of the fees that it will assess for providing the 
          documents required for the sale of a unit and to distinguish 
          these fees from any other fees, fines, or assessments associated 
          with the sale.

          ANALYSIS:

          A common-interest development (CID) is a form of real estate in 
          which each homeowner has an exclusive interest in a unit or lot 
          and a shared or undivided interest in common area property.  
          Condominiums, planned unit developments, stock cooperatives, 
          community apartments, and many resident-owned mobilehome parks 
          all fall under the umbrella of common interest developments.  A 
          homeowners' association with an elected board of directors 
          governs each CID.  The Davis-Stirling Common Interest 
          Development Act provides the legal framework under which common 
          interest developments are established and operate.  

          Current law requires the seller of a unit in a CID to provide a 
          prospective purchaser with various documents related to the CID, 
          including:

           The CID's governing documents.
           A statement regarding any age restrictions in the CID.
           The CID's most recent budget, financial audit, reserve funding 
            plan, and insurance policy summary. 
           The amount of the CID's current regular and special 
            assessments and fees, as well as any unpaid assessments, fees, 
            or fines related to the unit.  
           Notice of any change in the CID's current regular and special 




          AB 771 (BUTLER)                                        Page 2

                                                                       


            assessments and fees that the board has approved but which 
            have not yet become due.
           A summary of any pending rule violations related to the unit.
           The preliminary list of any construction defects that is the 
            subject of potential or actual litigation against the 
            developer and, if applicable, a summary of any settlement.

          Because the CID, rather than the unit owner, maintains these 
          documents, current law requires the CID to provide the selling 
          owner with a copy of these documents within ten days of a 
          request.  The CID may charge a reasonable fee based upon its 
          actual cost to procure, prepare, and reproduce the documents.

           
          This bill  :

           Adds to the list of documents the seller must provide a 
            prospective purchaser the minutes of the most recent 12 
            months' worth of regular meetings of the CID's board of 
            directors, if requested by the purchaser.
           Requires the CID to provide the documents to any recipient the 
            selling owner authorizes.
           Requires the CID to provide a written or electronic estimate 
            of the fees that it will assess for providing the documents, 
            upon receipt of a written request.  The CID must provide this 
            estimate on a statutory form that this bill creates, which 
            lists each document and the aggregate fee associated with the 
            provision of all the documents. 
           Prohibits a CID from charging additional fees for electronic 
            transmission of the documents.
           Requires a CID to distinguish the fees associated with the 
            provisions of these documents from any other fees, fines, or 
            assessments the CID bills as part of the sale.
           Prohibits a CID from withholding or conditioning the provision 
            of the documents for any reason other than non-payment of the 
            associated fees.

          COMMENTS:

           1.Purpose of the bill  .  According to the sponsor, many CIDs 
            "bundle" the fees for the provision of the documents listed 
            above with other unrelated fees due to the CID upon sale.  
            This bill explicitly prohibits such bundling and also requires 
            disclosure of the fee associated only with these documents.  
            The sponsor asserts that the lack of such disclosure has 
            created difficulties when closing real estate transactions.




          AB 771 (BUTLER)                                        Page 3

                                                                       



           2.Capping agent fees  .  Current law allows an association to 
            charge a reasonable fee based on its actual costs to provide 
            these documents to sellers.  Many CIDs contract with an agent, 
            however, to provide these documents, and the 4th District 
            Court of Appeal in Berryman v. Merit Property Management 
            (2007) ruled that the statutory limit on fees does not apply 
            to agents of CIDs.  According to information the sponsors 
            provided, agents sometimes charge upwards of $1000 to provide 
            these documents, four to five times what the CIDs themselves 
            charge.  While previous versions of the bill explicitly 
            applied the "actual cost" language to these agents, the bill 
            no longer does so.  As a result, courts are likely to continue 
            ruling that there is no cap on what an agent may charge to 
            provide these documents, just disclosure.  Moreover, because 
            the agent is the only one authorized to provide the documents 
            for a given association, he or she essentially has a monopoly 
            and has no competitive incentive to moderate exorbitant fees.  
            The homeseller is therefore at the agent's mercy and must pay 
            whatever fee the agent sets.  To protect homesellers from 
            exorbitant fees, the committee may wish to consider capping 
            agent fees at $250.
          
           3.Technical amendments  :  The author may wish to accept the 
            following technical amendments.  If so, she should take the 
            amendments in the Judiciary Committee due to the double 
            referral.

                 On page 4, lines 4-5 strike "regular meetings" and 
               insert, "meetings, excluding meetings held in executive 
               session,"
                 On page 4 line 13 after "provide" insert ", on the form 
               described in Section 1368.2,"
                 On page 8 line 13 strike "regular meetings" and insert, 
               "meetings, excluding meetings held in executive session,"
                 On page 8 line 21 after "provide" insert ", on the form 
               described in Section 1368.2,"

           1.Double referral  .  The Senate Rules Committee has referred this 
            bill to both this committee and the Senate Judiciary 
            Committee.
          
          Assembly Votes:
               Floor:    76-0
               Jud:    9-0
               H&CD:   7-0




          AB 771 (BUTLER)                                        Page 4

                                                                       



          POSITIONS:  (Communicated to the Committee before noon on 
          Wednesday,                                             June 22, 
          2011)

               SUPPORT:  California Association of Realtors (sponsor)

          
               OPPOSED:  None received.