Residents: Visit mySeabreeze.com
The California Legislature focused much of its energy this year on laws that impact associations throughout the State now and for years to come. While some of these Assembly Bills (AB) and Senate Bills (SB) were introduced as “clean-up” laws to clarify or repair existing portions of Civil Code and Corporations Code, there were also several new ideas that were signed by Governor Gavin Newsom as well.
At the federal level, the Federal National Mortgage Association (FNMA -- commonly known as “Fannie Mae”) added several new questions to their lender questionnaire that call for answers to difficult questions as a result of the tragedy at the Champlain Towers South in Florida this past summer.
Managers from the Seabreeze family of companies recently attended an internal Legislative Update with five law firms representing all regions of California to help navigate these laws and understand best practices to deal with them consistently and fairly. Today’s electronic update will help our board member clients understand them too.
Before we begin, it is important to note that there are dozens of law firms throughout the State of California who specialize in common interest developments. As a result, some of them offer official-sounding websites that offer their legal opinions without spelling out that they are exactly that — opinions, not legal facts. If you want to know what the law says about an issue, please visit www.leginfo.legislature.ca.gov and click on the “California Law” tab. Doing so will allow you the opportunity to search by key words and phrases and provide you with the law as it is written, not an interpretation.
If you would like an interpretation of the law, please work with your manager to seek that from your association’s general counsel. Applying one law firm’s opinion in potential contradiction to your law firm’s advice can be damaging to the Association and quite costly in legal fees to undo.
The partial collapse of the 12-story Champlain Towers South condos in Surfside, Florida that killed 98 people in the early morning hours of June 24, 2021 was a dreadful and heartbreaking lesson in deferring maintenance that will be litigated for years to come. Built in 1981, the membership recently approved a $15 million special assessment for renovation after several years of reported corrosion, but they never got to the project before the unimaginable happened.
In response, the United States Congress is contemplating several pieces of federal legislation to guard against a catastrophic loss like Champlain Towers ever happening again on U.S. soil. In the meantime, federal entities are now asking about existing structures through one of their main lending institutions.
The Federal National Mortgage Association, more commonly known as Fannie Mae (FNMA), was founded in 1938 during the Great Depression as part of Franklin D. Roosevelt’s “New Deal” to help the struggling U.S. economy by making mortgages more available to middle- and low-income buyers who otherwise wouldn’t qualify for standard bank loans. Similar to its sibling organization, the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, known as Freddie Mac (FHLMC), Fannie Mae does not make direct loans, but instead provides guarantees on loans made by other institutions. This makes potential buyers with fewer financial qualifications more attractive for lenders to approve. Please note that the questions discussed here will not impact associations where the sale or refinance price exceeds the base prices allowable by these organizations, nor will it impact our partners in commercial common interest developments.
In October of 2021, Fannie Mae announced the introduction of new questions for their lender questionnaires that would become mandatory to answer in December for all loans seeking their backing. The first, and most important of these being a requirement to provide information as follows:
Is the HOA and/or management company aware of any conditions or project-wide deferred maintenance within the project that may negatively impact the safety, structural soundness, habitability, or functional use of the project as a whole or any individual units?
Working in partnership with our national escrow documentation agency, HomeWiseDocs.com, as well as reviewing the information with a consortium of over a dozen attorney firms throughout the states of California, Nevada, and Arizona, a stock answer was drafted that directs the responsibility for those analyses to the appropriate parties — the appraisers, state or local regulatory bodies, and other real estate stakeholders who must make those safety and soundness decisions with the buyers, not the managing agent or the board of directors. This stock answer is now provided each time the new question is asked:
Making determinations regarding the structural safety and soundness or habitability of this association due to deferred maintenance conditions is far beyond the scope of management services that we are contracted to perform.
Correspondingly, the association’s legal counsel has advised us to not answer any questions from lenders, Realtors, or other third parties who may infer or directly make representations or warranties pertaining to this matter.
Making structural safety and soundness, habitability, and deferred maintenance decisions for condominium or cooperative projects is the responsibility of lenders, appraisers, and local or state regulatory bodies, not management companies or volunteer boards of directors.
However, pursuant to guidelines established in Fannie Mae’s Lender Letter LL-2021-14 regarding Temporary Requirements for Condo and Co-op Projects, we have made documents available at www.homewisedocs.com that may assist lenders and other real estate stakeholders in making safety and soundness decisions for this project.
These documents may or may not include regular board meeting minutes, current monthly financial statements, annual financial statements, annual budgets, litigation documents, and other reports. Additionally, our lender questionnaires at www.homewisedocs.com will provide a complete description of special assessments (if any) currently levied against the unit owners of this association.
These documents, in conjunction with the lender’s appraisal and any state or local regulatory body certifications, inspections, or certificates of occupancy, will assist lenders in making accurate assessments of this association’s structural safety and soundness or habitability.
There are other questions tied to these, but this is the standard of the field, and each seller already has a list of documents to disclose during an escrow in accordance with Civil Code, which are most often requested from management through the escrow company:
Working with us as your management company, we strive to provide documentation quickly and thoroughly, but with the best protections in place for the association as a whole. Due to these new Fannie Mae requirements, that may mean that loans will not be approved as readily as they were in years past.
In 2015, then-Governor Jerry Brown signed what is now California Civil Code § 4735 (c) into law prohibiting associations from imposing fines or assessments against owners who reduce or eliminate water for their vegetation or lawns during declared states of emergency due to a drought. Similarly, Civil Code § 4736 (a) nullifies association requirements to pressure wash exteriors during those same drought emergencies.
Unfortunately, despite the recent December storms, snowpacks, and downpours, as of October 19, 2021 California remains in a state of drought emergency as declared by Governor Gavin Newsom. According to www.drought.ca.gov, the water year that ended September 30, 2021 “was the second driest on record, due to extreme heat and lack of rain and snow. All 58 counties in California are now under a drought emergency proclamation.” It is unlikely that our state will come out of the emergency declaration until at least next fall, or possibly 2023 — or later.
This does not mean that residents who are responsible for the upkeep of their yards or structures have no maintenance obligations at all. In many cases, lack of lawn care or exterior maintenance can become de facto fire hazards and should be addressed consistently in the community. Please work with your community management team on what approach fits your association best.
California Senate Bill (SB) 392 from Bob J. Archuleta (D) of the 32nd Senate District which includes portions of LA and Orange Counties, was a “cleanup bill” to help clarify what information must be disclosed by owners on an annual basis to the association.
Ever since the Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act rewrite took effect on January 1, 2014, California Civil Code §4040 has allowed for owners to request certain documents that are provided by Individual Notice such as the budget, audit or review, and other specified records to be sent to them by email where normally the association would be required to send them via first-class mail (most common) or personal delivery (rarely used). Then in 2017, the California Legislature added another requirement under Civil Code §4041 that each owner provide specific information to the association such as additional contacts, who their legal representation is, and how their property is used. With that change, even though the owner is required to provide this information, it is the association that is obligated to ask for it by Individual Notice. These solicitations for information are commonly referred to as “Owner Notice Disclosures.”
To ensure that owner mailing information got updated ahead of the budget packets, the Legislature required distribution of Owner Notice Disclosures at least 30 days prior to the budgets being sent to the members — and those budgets go out at least 30, but not more than 90 days prior to the association’s fiscal year end (FYE).
To save money for the association, and be environmentally conscious, most of our clients simply send the Owner Notice Disclosures with their annual audit or review which occurs within 120 days after the fiscal year beginning (FYB) — which is around 240 days prior to the fiscal year end and meets the minimum requirements of being at least 30 days prior to the budgets being distributed.
As confusing as this sounds (please see the graphic [below/above]), it plays an important role in this year’s cleanup legislation because with SB 392, now owners will be asked annually with their Owner Notice Disclosures whether or not they want to receive those specified documents electronically where before they had to know how to ask for that service. On the other hand, the new Owner Notice Disclosure also points out that owners are not obliged to provide their email information, and the new law gives specific instructions that management will follow if an email “bounces” when sent. This new process will add a page to the audit or review cover letters, but it is more likely that owners will sign up for electronic delivery of documents in the long run which could save the association total copying and postage fees.
Another benefit to SB 392 is the option to post agendas, some election materials, and other items required by Civil Code §4045 to the association’s own website or myseabreeze.com as long as that was the site listed with the last budget mailer that was distributed to the membership. Several clients are choosing to post to both locations this year with the idea to move to website only next year when the members are more accustomed to finding information there. As shown in the graphic above, the definitions in Civil Code for Individual Notice will change on January 1, 2023 after the new solicitations for email are distributed this year.
Lastly, SB 392 included language that associations and management companies are prohibited from selling or transmitting member information without the member’s consent. Please know that our company only uses membership lists for association purposes, not just because it’s required by law, but because it is the right thing to do.
California State Senator Bob Wieckowski (D) represents Senate District 10 in the East Bay area and carried SB 432 to tighten up some of the election laws that took effect in 2020. The new law specifies that board candidates may only be disqualified from consideration if:
SB 432 also requires if there were any candidacy requirements set forth in the election rules, they would also apply to sitting board members.
In addition, the cleanup included a statement that the “candidate list” which is part of the election materials retained by the association as defined in Civil Code must include the name and address of all individuals nominated as board candidates, but it does not require that those addresses be published on any of the materials that are posted or distributed to the membership.
One important change that was included in the cleanup bill of SB 432 was to repair the timeline gap for recall elections in Corporations Code § 7511(c). Now recall elections can be conducted between 35 and 150 days after receipt of a valid petition, where previously the law required the association to conduct a recall election between 35 and 90 days after receipt of the petition. Doing so was virtually impossible given the various pre-meeting notices required under the new election laws of 2020.
Lastly, SB 432 applies the same qualifications that are required for the Inspector(s) of Election to those “helpers” who are appointed to assist the Inspector(s) as they count the ballots. Those qualifications are that they may not be running for the board, be on the board, or be related to anyone running for the board or on the board. Helpers also cannot be serving for compensable services to the association; therefore, the association’s attorney, CPA, manager, or other vendor cannot assist with the election process unless they are the designated Inspector of Election.
The more major piece of legislation related to elections was introduced by Assemblymember Laura Davies (R) who represents Assembly District 73 in South Orange County. In 2020, Civil Code § 5100(g) was added to the Davis-Stirling Act so associations with 6,000 or more units could avoid sending out ballot materials when the number of director nominees did not exceed the number of open positions. Instead, the candidates could be seated by the board of directors by acclamation at a properly noticed board meeting to save time and money. When the California Legislative Action Committee of the Community Associations Institute (CAI-CLAC) asked Assemblymember Davies to sponsor AB 502 to simply remove the requirement that the association have 6,000 or more units to take advantage of the program, she gladly introduced the bill as a way to save money and avoid wasting paper.
Unfortunately, the bill had to pass through several different subcommittees and was opposed by various lobbying groups. This led to the final version we have today as Civil Code § 5103 which includes these requirements:
If the number of qualified director nominees received by the final deadline does not exceed the number of open positions as determined by the Inspector(s) of Election, the association can consider the qualified candidates elected by acclamation.
Simply put, the timeline for the distribution of election materials will change substantially if the board wishes to pursue the opportunity to vote by acclamation. Additionally, there is no guarantee that there will be the same or fewer candidates, so sending out the dual notices by 1st class mail could still lead to the requirement to include the regular balloting materials as well which is a potential extra cost for materials. balloting materials as well which is a potential extra cost for materials. Along with that, nowhere in AB 502 does it address the potential for nominations from the floor, write-in candidates, or provide a clear definition of “regular election” to have been held within the last three years. Lastly, the provision requiring the Inspector(s) of Election to confirm the number of qualified candidates can be tricky since most professional Inspector(s) do not distribute the solicitation of candidate materials. As a result, their industry is grappling with the potential that a volunteer Inspector would be the one to verify candidates to enable a vote by acclimation with a shift to the paid Inspector contract when more candidates are confirmed than there are open positions. These are all uncharted waters.
One simple addition to the election laws that came from AB 502 was the requirement to confirm receipt of candidate statements and their eligibility within seven (7) business days of receiving that nomination. If a potential candidate is not qualified, the notice must include a statement as to why they are not and the procedure to appeal the decision to disqualify. These notices will be completed by management electronically in most cases, unless there is no email address on file.
After the struggles of 2020 where every association adopted revised election rules to accommodate the new laws that were signed in 2019, the part of AB 502 that permits a vote by acclamation uses a “notwithstanding” provision — simply put, the acclamation process can be used even if it conflicts with the complicated election rules adopted by the association less than 24 months ago as required by those 2019 laws as long as the new, longer timelines for solicitation of candidates required by these new laws are met.
Having said that, it is our recommendation that each association consider adopting new election rules (again) this year to clearly incorporate both the revised recall election laws that were passed in Corporations Code under SB 432 and the new provisions for voting by acclamation with their revised timelines called for in AB 502. These rules should be drafted by your association’s legal counsel, put to a 28-day comment period for the membership by at least General Notice (posting to the location specified in your last budget mailer), and voted on at a duly noticed board meeting. Doing so would ensure that there are fewer challenges, if any, should the board choose to use the vote by acclamation process that is in potential conflict with its adopted election rules on file.
Also remember that 2020’s revised election laws required that any new election rules must be adopted at least 90 days prior to an election. Chances are most associations will not be able to take advantage of the new acclamation program this year with those extended timelines if their elections are slated to take place prior to July or August, but they can plan for the future and your manager can adjust mailing timelines for the 2023 elections instead with solid election rules in place.
Another piece of legislation related to the election process that passed last year was AB 611 presented by Assemblymember Sharon Quirk-Silva (D) from the 65th Assembly District representing North Orange County. The Safe at Home (SaH) Program for Homeowners’ Associations was designed to protect victims of domestic violence, stalking, human trafficking, and other crimes that threaten safety from someone’s information being discoverable by others.
Any SaH participant who requests to have his or her information redacted from the association’s records shall have the address designated by the California Secretary of State as the substitute address for the records for all official association communications. Additionally, all membership lists, directories, mailbox listings, etc. will have that information redacted in a way to keep the SaH participation confidential. This important program does not only impact information that is shared at the elections, but also what is made available via any membership list requests.
The Common Interest Development Open Meeting Act has addressed member attendance at all association meetings for many years, and it’s Civil Code § 4090 that defines “Board Meetings,” requiring in part (b) that any teleconferenced meeting that is not held solely to discuss matters in executive session must “identify at least one physical location so that members of the association may attend, and at least one director or a person designated by the board shall be present at that location.” When COVID hit in 2020 and Governor Newsom restricted gatherings of Californians, those provisions were not rewritten — they were simply overruled by his executive order.
State Senator Dave Min (D) of the 37th District representing Central Orange County introduced SB 391 as a way to codify a board’s ability to meet electronically during an emergency. This new law, Civil Code § 5450, allows for common interest developments throughout the State to conduct meetings via teleconference if gatherings in person are “unsafe or impossible” due to:
To be clear, the Governor declaring a drought emergency does not qualify for boards to be able to solely meet electronically as droughts are not deemed unsafe or rendering in-person meetings to be impossible.
If there is a true emergency, a board of directors can meet without a designated meeting location as long as the following conditions are satisfied:
The largest question, of course, comes with health and safety risks like COVID. When the Governor’s orders were to shelter in place except as needed to maintain critical operations, there were few who challenged a board’s need to meet electronically. In fact, many boards of directors and association members have expressed their newfound appreciation for the opportunity to meet via webcam or teleconference so they can conduct or witness association business while still enjoying a good meal and the company of loved ones at home.
This style of meeting can still be accomplished by simply publishing the management office as the physical location to have attendees come if desired, and the manager can conduct the electronic meeting from that location. Again, with COVID variants presenting themselves in new and complex ways, the opportunity to hold meetings at the management office could change very quickly which would require the published notices as described above. There are also various opinions on this issue, so please have your manager consult with your association’s attorney if you wish to explore this process at your community.
In 2019, Senator Wieckowski sponsored SB 908 to add a layer of regulatory oversight for debt collectors and debt buyers in California via licensing by the Commissioner of Business Oversight. Working with CAI-CLAC and other organizations, there were some questions as to whether this would require management companies and homeowners associations to file for debt collection licenses after the State-mandated deadline of January 1, 2022.
The short answer is that the HOAs will not need to become individually licensed. The language of the law describes the debt collection process which management companies might be subject to but boards and HOAs would not; therefore, Seabreeze and its partner companies have processed their applications in accordance with the provisions of the Code.
Ricardo Lara (D) who currently serves as the Insurance Commissioner of the State of California was a State Senator in 2016 when he introduced SB 1383, proposing a flexible Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Reduction Strategy (SLCP). Originally focused on finding ways to reduce the sources of greenhouse gases in California when it was signed in 2016, this bill has been modified a number of times so that effective January 1, 2022, all California residences, multi-family complexes, and businesses will be required to separate organic wastes from the other trash components and include them with other green waste for composting instead of housing them with regular trash.
Additionally, since the law requires all waste collection containers to have consistent color requirements throughout the State by January 1, 2036, many refuse collection agencies and firms are switching to the new schemes and new trash cans now with the addition of the organics provision. All individual waste containers will eventually have black bodies and lids that are:
Waste disposal companies are requiring that the recycle and food/organics containers not have plastic bags when materials are placed in them. Several clients have asked, so the waste disposal companies are also offering suggestions to keep the food and organics container clean without the use of plastic or recycled liners:
Prohibited items will still include needles, chemicals, paint, fluorescent bulbs, propane tanks, aerosol containers, batteries, electronics, and construction debris. Depending on your service provider and location, those items are typically accepted at local hazardous waste collection centers.
Some residents have expressed concern to their managers about the inability to place food and organics waste into plastic bags prior to disposal in their individual trash bins and have asked their boards to seek services from other waste disposal companies. Please know that this law applies throughout the State of California and is not easy for the waste service companies either. For more information, please visit calrecycle.ca.gov/organics/slcp.
Prior to the Coronavirus Pandemic reaching our shores, Governor Gavin Newsom announced in his State of the State Address in January of 2020 that “no amount of progress can camouflage the most pernicious crisis in our midst, the ultimate manifestation of poverty: homelessness.” In so doing, he made it clear throughout his speech that he was dedicated to shepherding legislation that would create more housing in California. Of course, dealing with COVID has taken over as the #1 priority, but make no mistake — housing is still a top order for Governor Newsom and his team. As a result, there have been several pieces of legislation that free up the opportunity to create more housing, sometimes at the expense of an association’s aesthetic guidelines.
For example, the Committee on Housing and Development put through AB 1584, its Housing Omnibus bill, which included more overrides on association provisions against accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and junior ADUs. The language of the legislation voids any association governing document that “effectively prohibits or unreasonably restricts the construction or use of an accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit on a lot zoned for single-family residential use.” The bill does allow for “reasonable restrictions” that do not: unreasonably increase the cost to construct; effectively prohibit the construction of; or, extinguish the ability to otherwise construct the ADU or junior ADU. If your association is a single-family home community and you have not already done so, it is a good idea to work with your association’s legal counsel to draft provisions into your architectural guidelines that marry with the setback requirements from your city or county and provide the best protections for the association.
In addition to that language, AB 1584 recognized the challenges faced by several associations that were required to amend their governing documents last year by December 31, 2021 if those documents had rental caps stricter than 25% or rental restrictions that required lease agreements to be longer than 30 days. In most cases, associations were able to meet the 2021 deadline with a simple rule change via 28-day notice to the membership. On the other hand, there were also some associations that were faced with amending their CC&Rs with a membership vote, which many tried and failed to accomplish.
AB 1584 now allows boards of directors to delete or restate those specific sections of their governing documents with a 28-day comment period instead of a membership vote, and the deadline was extended to July 1, 2022. Please have your manager work with your association’s legal counsel for specific wording if needed.
Of interest to associations, but not a direct impact, SB 60 was introduced by Sate Senator Steve Glazer (D) from District 7 in Contra Costa County. This bill allows local governments (not associations) to impose higher penalties if owners create risks for their neighbors through short-term rentals that violate local codes. The new fine structure is a $1,500 maximum fine for a 1st violation, $3,000 maximum fine for a 2nd violation, and each additional violation within a year of the 1st can be assessed at $5,000 by the local city or county. Again, this applies to local governments only, but it supports the reasonableness of significant fines for these types of penalties.
Another bill that CAI-CLAC watched very closely last year was SB 9 presented by State Senator Toni Atkins (D) of District 39 including most of the City of San Diego. This law requires municipalities to treat proposed housing developments containing “no more than two residential units” as “single-family residential housing.” Essentially, these municipalities would be required to ministerially approve a duplex in a single-family housing zone. The CAI-CLAC representatives expressed their strong concern and opposition to the bill throughout the legislative process with the request that she specify in the law that it would not apply to homeowners associations and require them to approve duplexes in single-family home communities.
Senator Atkins would not amend the language in the law to include this provision; however, she did provide a letter to the Senate Journal stating that the bill does not amend the Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act, so it does not supersede the governing documents. The letter shows the legislative intent of the bill and can be found here for your review. Some of the key terminology that should be included in your association’s CC&Rs that marry to this letter of legislative intent are “single family usage” or “further subdivision is prohibited” or “shall not be able to subdivide.” If your documents do not have this language for your single-family home community, please work with your manager to speak to your association’s legal counsel about options.
Similar to SB 9, State Senator Scott Weiner (D) of District 11 representing the City of San Francisco introduced a bill for city and county zoning ordinances, SB 10, that had associations specifically removed from it during the legislative process.
Effective January 1, 2019, all California HOAs were obligated to purchase and maintain “fidelity bond coverage” in an amount at least equal to the funds in the reserve account and three months’ worth of assessments under the prior legislation of AB 2912. Assemblymember Jacqui Irwin (D) of the 44th District representing Ventura County residents from Oxnard to Thousand Oaks sponsored AB 1101 this year as a cleanup bill now that associations have been working under the provisions of AB 2912 for a few years.
The new language of AB 1101 now allows for the purchase of insurance that covers crime, employee dishonesty, or equivalent in addition to the fidelity bond that was put into place in 2019 under Civil Code § 5806. That way associations can have flexibility in the type of insurance that is secured to cover the same essential need — protection of the association’s assets from theft.
Additionally, AB 1101 includes a requirement that financial institutions used by associations must be insured (this has been a standard for all of our clients), and it modified the language for transfer from $10,000 to $5,000 if the association has 50 or fewer units. As a reminder, the language of the law from AB 2912 in 2019 requires that the board of directors record a resolution in the minutes when there is a transfer of funds. Your community manager does this as a standard practice with the adoption of your budget each year to show that funds will be transferred monthly from your operating account to your reserve account in accordance with your new budget, and in some cases, when you have a reserve transfer need.
Homeowners associations have been in existence in California for over 100 years. As a result, some of the original governing documents contained grossly discriminatory language that would never be legal (ethical, moral, or acceptable) in American society today. Most associations have restated or revised those older governing documents to remove the discriminatory language by vote of the membership at some point since inception but doing so can be difficult due to the quorum requirements necessary, so some have not.
Several years ago, the California Legislature passed a law now shown as Government Code § 12956.1. requiring a cover sheet on every set of association governing documents provided through the escrow process that states, in 14-point bold-faced type:
“If this document contains any restriction based on race, color, religion, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, familial status, marital status, disability, veteran or military status, genetic information, national origin, source of income as defined in subdivision (p) of Section 12955, or ancestry, that restriction violates state and federal fair housing laws and is void, and may be removed pursuant to Section 12956.2 of the Government Code. Lawful restrictions under state and federal law on the age of occupants in senior housing or housing for older persons shall not be construed as restrictions based on familial status.”
This year Assemblymember Kevin McCarty (D) of the 7th Assembly District representing Sacramento introduced AB 1466 which not only added “age” to the list of restrictive provisions which was unenforceable, it also offered that the discriminatory language can be redacted without a vote of the membership by submitting a “Restrictive Covenant Modification” form, together with a copy of the document with the unlawful provision redacted to the county recorder’s office. The “Restrictive Covenant Modification” form can be obtained from the county recorder’s office and may be available on its internet website. The final language of the disclosure was modified to include these instructions as well.
In the last few years, there have been several reports of various animals being brought to association facilities that are closed to pets. Service animals are those that are trained to provide a specific purpose such as seeing-eye dogs or dogs to assist people with mobility limitations. Support animals provide comfort, emotional, or other support, especially for people experiencing post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Currently, the California Department of Fair Employment & Housing (DFEH) requires that an association must allow for both service animals and emotional support animals to be allowed to be kept with their owners, even where pets are not typically permitted.
The DFEH requires that qualified persons with disabilities can request accommodations, including these assistance animals, and can have more than one as long as there is a note to support the need for that support. There is no breed, size, or weight limit, and they do not limit the animals to only dogs. Additionally, they are not considered “pets” under the definition, so the association cannot charge a fee, including insurance, deposits, etc. when taking an inventory.
You might have seen on the news that some owners have taken advantage of websites that offer “emotional support certificates” for a fee. Assembly member Laura Friedman (D) of District 43 representing the Burbank, East Hollywood, and Silverlake areas introduced AB 468 as a way to stop people from taking advantage of those websites and protecting the victims of PTSD who really do need the comforts of these emotional support animals. Although the bill is not specifically aimed at associations, it’s important to know that it prohibits health care practitioners from prescribing emotional support dogs unless they have:
This bill also codifies that violations are subject to fines of $500 for the 1st violation; $1,000 for the 2nd violation; and $2,500 for the 3rd and subsequent violations. Health care professionals who knowingly or fraudulently represent, sell, or offer for sale an emotional support dog as being entitled to rights accorded to guide, signal, or service dogs or violation the written notice requirements set for dogs to be sold as emotional support animals are subject to those fines. Please note, the language of the law only applies to dogs. Knowing this, boards that have concern about the validity of a support animal’s certification should work with their legal counsel to navigate the protected waters of the DFEH.