MD (California)
Posts: 27
Posts: 27
Posted:
APPELLATE COURT RULES IN FAVOR OF LEISURE WORLD SENIORS!
>
> Leisure World/Seal Beach seniors bagged yet another
> victory on last week, when the California Court of Appeal
> Fourth Appellate District in Santa Ana ruled in their
> favor and against the Golden Rain Foundation (GRF).
>
> In an 18-page decision, the Appeals Court reaffirmed a
> lower court ruling that Leisure World is indeed a common
> interest development and, therefore, subject to the state
> laws governing associations.
>
> The battle began in January 2004 when seven seniors filed
> 16 suits in small claims court, because the Golden Rain
> Foundation, which operates Leisure World, refused to turn
> over financial records. Civil Code 1365.02 lets homeowners
> sue in small claims court if an association refuses to
> grant access to records. Since 2004, both Orange County
> small claims and superior courts have repeatedly ruled in
> favor of Carol Franz, Edmund Loritz, David Lyon, Jacklyn
> Shaw, and several other residents.
>
> The Foundation then tried another legal tack: countersuing
> the seniors and arguing that Leisure World wasn’t a common
> interest development to begin with and that the Foundation
> “wasn’t a homeowner association.” It concluded, therefore,
> that neither entity was subject to the state statutes
> governing California’s 45,000 common interest communities.
> Golden Rain has been battling the seniors in Orange
> County courts for four-and-a-half years -- and losing
> every round.
>
> On June 9th, the Fourth Appellate Court reaffirmed the
> lower court ruling: Golden Rain Foundation is indeed an
> association and Leisure World, by every measure, is a
> common interest development and both are, therefore,
> subject to state laws governing associations.
>
> “I’m overjoyed and relieved,” said Franz, one of the
> Leisure World seniors who brought the small claims suit
> more than four years ago. “We are delighted that it’s
> over – and that the opinion is a published opinion with
> application to associations like our own.”
>
> Added David Lyon, one of the original plaintiffs, “The
> Golden Rain Foundation fought the law – and the law won.
> You can’t just pick and choose which laws you want to
> follow. Golden Rain argued for four years that it was
> exempt from association law – and it isn’t.”
>
> But whether Monday’s ruling will end the fight is unclear.
>
> The Center for Homeowner Association Law phoned Leisure
> World Administrator Daniel Schaeffer to ask him if Golden
> Rain plans to appeal the case to the California Supreme
> Court. Schaeffer's spokeswoman said she was instructed to
> tell the Center that "Mr. Schaeffer is in a meeting right
> now with the GRF president, two board members and the GRF
> attorneys to decide what to do next, because we're not
> sure what the decision means; it's quite ambiguous. The
> ramifications of the ruling aren't clear."
>
> According to Steven P. Rice, one of the attorneys for the
> seniors, the published opinion is extraordinarily clear:
> it will apply to other Leisure World communities, like
> Rossmoor in Walnut Creek (Contra Costa County), also
> founded by developer Ross Cortese. “It will also apply to
> other associations to the extent that they are structured
> like Leisure World,” he said. He also praised the three
> Appellate Court judges for the clarity of the opinion and
> for the definitions it offered.
>
> Rossmoor, operated by a Golden Rain Foundation, filed an
> amicus brief with the Appellate Court in support of the
> Seal Beach GRF. Rossmoor seniors have also been
> campaigning to get the Foundation to open up its records.
> They too want to know how GRF is spending their money.
>
> With the help of Orange County Legal Aid, the Leisure
> World seniors filed the original small claims suits under
> AB 104, legislation carried by then-Assembly Member Alan
> Lowenthal (D-Long Beach) in 2003.
>
> He carried the bill because of complaints by senior
> constituents in his own district that they were unable to
> access the financial records of their association to find
> out how boards and property managers were spending the
> thousands of dollars collected from homeowners.
>
> The seniors in his district were also worried about
> escalating assessments. [State law lets California
> associations raise assessments 20% a year -- without
> homeowner consent. HOAs now control about $8.8 billion
> dollars -- in cash -- collected from the 9 million
> homeowners living in associations.]
>
> A coalition of senior groups in Sacramento, chaired by
> Marjorie Murray, now president of the Center for Homeowner
> Association Law, proposed an amendment to AB 104 allowing
> homeowners to sue in small claims court if the association
> refused to open up the financial records. The senior
> coalition lobbied hard to get the bill through the
> Legislature and launched a separate campaign to get the
> bill signed into law. The Leisure World seniors used the
> small claims court tool immediately, when AB 104 became
> effective in 2004.
>
> Legislation later carried by Assembly Member Dave Jones
> [D-Sacramento] further strengthened and clarified
> homeowner rights under state law to access association
> records. The sponsor of the bill, the California Alliance
> for Retired Americans, again under the leadership of
> Murray, got the legislation amended so that it stated
> clearly that community service organizations like Leisure
> World are subject to the Civil Code laws on accessing
> records. By 2005, when the bill was introduced, Golden
> Rain was arguing that it was a community service
> organization (CSO), not subject to association laws.
>
> Orange County courts have sided with the seniors in
> multiple rulings. Monday’s Appeals Court ruling was on
> the countersuit filed by Golden Rain in retaliation
> against the seven seniors who filed the original small
> claims actions.
>
> How much money Golden Rain has spent on legal fees
> fighting the seniors is not known. Estimates range from
> $500,000 to $1 million dollars. The Appellate court ruled
> on Monday that Golden Rain will also have to pay the legal
> fees of the attorneys, who represented the seniors.
>
> More than 9,000 seniors live in Leisure World. It’s not
> clear whether the Golden Rain Foundation will have to levy
> a special assessment on the Leisure World seniors in order
> to pay all the legal bills, including those of the
> attorneys representing Franz and the other original
> plaintiffs. If Golden Rain tries to appeal Monday’s
> ruling in the California Supreme Court, it will have to
> spend even more homeowner money.
>
> In a nice touch of irony, Carol Franz learned of the
> Appellate ruling Monday afternoon during the Golden Rain
> annual meeting, where she was delivering a speech on board
> accountability. “The 300 homeowners at the meeting all
> cheered,” she said.
> ###
>
> Leisure World/Seal Beach seniors bagged yet another
> victory on last week, when the California Court of Appeal
> Fourth Appellate District in Santa Ana ruled in their
> favor and against the Golden Rain Foundation (GRF).
>
> In an 18-page decision, the Appeals Court reaffirmed a
> lower court ruling that Leisure World is indeed a common
> interest development and, therefore, subject to the state
> laws governing associations.
>
> The battle began in January 2004 when seven seniors filed
> 16 suits in small claims court, because the Golden Rain
> Foundation, which operates Leisure World, refused to turn
> over financial records. Civil Code 1365.02 lets homeowners
> sue in small claims court if an association refuses to
> grant access to records. Since 2004, both Orange County
> small claims and superior courts have repeatedly ruled in
> favor of Carol Franz, Edmund Loritz, David Lyon, Jacklyn
> Shaw, and several other residents.
>
> The Foundation then tried another legal tack: countersuing
> the seniors and arguing that Leisure World wasn’t a common
> interest development to begin with and that the Foundation
> “wasn’t a homeowner association.” It concluded, therefore,
> that neither entity was subject to the state statutes
> governing California’s 45,000 common interest communities.
> Golden Rain has been battling the seniors in Orange
> County courts for four-and-a-half years -- and losing
> every round.
>
> On June 9th, the Fourth Appellate Court reaffirmed the
> lower court ruling: Golden Rain Foundation is indeed an
> association and Leisure World, by every measure, is a
> common interest development and both are, therefore,
> subject to state laws governing associations.
>
> “I’m overjoyed and relieved,” said Franz, one of the
> Leisure World seniors who brought the small claims suit
> more than four years ago. “We are delighted that it’s
> over – and that the opinion is a published opinion with
> application to associations like our own.”
>
> Added David Lyon, one of the original plaintiffs, “The
> Golden Rain Foundation fought the law – and the law won.
> You can’t just pick and choose which laws you want to
> follow. Golden Rain argued for four years that it was
> exempt from association law – and it isn’t.”
>
> But whether Monday’s ruling will end the fight is unclear.
>
> The Center for Homeowner Association Law phoned Leisure
> World Administrator Daniel Schaeffer to ask him if Golden
> Rain plans to appeal the case to the California Supreme
> Court. Schaeffer's spokeswoman said she was instructed to
> tell the Center that "Mr. Schaeffer is in a meeting right
> now with the GRF president, two board members and the GRF
> attorneys to decide what to do next, because we're not
> sure what the decision means; it's quite ambiguous. The
> ramifications of the ruling aren't clear."
>
> According to Steven P. Rice, one of the attorneys for the
> seniors, the published opinion is extraordinarily clear:
> it will apply to other Leisure World communities, like
> Rossmoor in Walnut Creek (Contra Costa County), also
> founded by developer Ross Cortese. “It will also apply to
> other associations to the extent that they are structured
> like Leisure World,” he said. He also praised the three
> Appellate Court judges for the clarity of the opinion and
> for the definitions it offered.
>
> Rossmoor, operated by a Golden Rain Foundation, filed an
> amicus brief with the Appellate Court in support of the
> Seal Beach GRF. Rossmoor seniors have also been
> campaigning to get the Foundation to open up its records.
> They too want to know how GRF is spending their money.
>
> With the help of Orange County Legal Aid, the Leisure
> World seniors filed the original small claims suits under
> AB 104, legislation carried by then-Assembly Member Alan
> Lowenthal (D-Long Beach) in 2003.
>
> He carried the bill because of complaints by senior
> constituents in his own district that they were unable to
> access the financial records of their association to find
> out how boards and property managers were spending the
> thousands of dollars collected from homeowners.
>
> The seniors in his district were also worried about
> escalating assessments. [State law lets California
> associations raise assessments 20% a year -- without
> homeowner consent. HOAs now control about $8.8 billion
> dollars -- in cash -- collected from the 9 million
> homeowners living in associations.]
>
> A coalition of senior groups in Sacramento, chaired by
> Marjorie Murray, now president of the Center for Homeowner
> Association Law, proposed an amendment to AB 104 allowing
> homeowners to sue in small claims court if the association
> refused to open up the financial records. The senior
> coalition lobbied hard to get the bill through the
> Legislature and launched a separate campaign to get the
> bill signed into law. The Leisure World seniors used the
> small claims court tool immediately, when AB 104 became
> effective in 2004.
>
> Legislation later carried by Assembly Member Dave Jones
> [D-Sacramento] further strengthened and clarified
> homeowner rights under state law to access association
> records. The sponsor of the bill, the California Alliance
> for Retired Americans, again under the leadership of
> Murray, got the legislation amended so that it stated
> clearly that community service organizations like Leisure
> World are subject to the Civil Code laws on accessing
> records. By 2005, when the bill was introduced, Golden
> Rain was arguing that it was a community service
> organization (CSO), not subject to association laws.
>
> Orange County courts have sided with the seniors in
> multiple rulings. Monday’s Appeals Court ruling was on
> the countersuit filed by Golden Rain in retaliation
> against the seven seniors who filed the original small
> claims actions.
>
> How much money Golden Rain has spent on legal fees
> fighting the seniors is not known. Estimates range from
> $500,000 to $1 million dollars. The Appellate court ruled
> on Monday that Golden Rain will also have to pay the legal
> fees of the attorneys, who represented the seniors.
>
> More than 9,000 seniors live in Leisure World. It’s not
> clear whether the Golden Rain Foundation will have to levy
> a special assessment on the Leisure World seniors in order
> to pay all the legal bills, including those of the
> attorneys representing Franz and the other original
> plaintiffs. If Golden Rain tries to appeal Monday’s
> ruling in the California Supreme Court, it will have to
> spend even more homeowner money.
>
> In a nice touch of irony, Carol Franz learned of the
> Appellate ruling Monday afternoon during the Golden Rain
> annual meeting, where she was delivering a speech on board
> accountability. “The 300 homeowners at the meeting all
> cheered,” she said.
> ###