On-Demand   On-Demand Web Programs

Representing Modest Means Homeowners in Association Disputes: Key California Statutes and Consumer Protections (Free)

Released on: Jan. 24, 2018
Running Time: 03:15:00

This training will introduce the new practitioner to statutes governing consumer rights in three key areas: assessment collection, transparency in association financial operations, and election statutes (used not only to elect board directors, but to set certain assessments.)  The training will also benefit practitioners, who have represented homeowners in the past, but want to deepen their understanding of the complex statutes governing associations.  The goal of the training is to provide participants with tools for representing modest means homeowners.


Lecture Topics
[Total time 00:03:30]
Segments with an asterisk (*) are available only with the purchase of the entire program.


  • Opening Remarks* [00:01:16]
    Marjorie Murray
  • Consumer Rights in California Common Interest Developments: Transparency in Association Records [00:56:49]
    Marjorie Murray, Commissioner Dave Jones
  • Limits on Assessment Collection and the Association’s Power to Foreclose [01:02:05]
    Justin T. Berger
  • Fairness and Integrity in Association Elections [01:14:50]
    Eric M. Schiffer

Presentation Material


  • Representing Modest Means Homeowners in Association Disputes: Key California Statutes and Consumer Protections (PowerPoint slides)
    Justin T. Berger, Commissioner Dave Jones, Marjorie Murray, Eric M. Schiffer
  • Representing Modest Means Homeowners in Association Disputes: Key California Statutes and Consumer Protections Complete Course Handbook
  • Cal. Civil Code §§4095-4125
    Marjorie Murray
  • Cohen v. Kite Hill 142 Cal.App.3d 642 (1983)
    Marjorie Murray
  • Damon v. Ocean Hills Journalism Club 85 Cal. App. 4th 468 (2000)
    Marjorie Murray
  • Villa Milano Homeowners Association v. IL Davorge 84 Cal.App.4th 819, 836 (2000)
    Marjorie Murray
  • Chantiles v. Lake Forest II Master Homeowners Association 37 Cal.App.4th 914 (1995)
    Marjorie Murray
  • Cal. Civil Code §§4340-4370 “Operating Rules”
    Marjorie Murray
  • Fair Employment and Housing Commission v. Auburn Woods I Homeowner Association 121 Cal. App. 4th 1578, 1591 (2002)
    Marjorie Murray
  • California Department of Fair Employment & Housing - Fair Housing Bulletin
    Marjorie Murray
  • Cal. Civ. Code §§5200-5240 “Association Records Inspection”
    Marjorie Murray
  • Assembly Judiciary Committee Analysis of AB1098/Jones, “Association Records,” (2005)
    Commissioner Dave Jones
  • Fact Sheet on Assembly Bill 1098/Jones Listing the Support of California Attorney General Bill Lockyer
    Commissioner Dave Jones
  • Moran v. Oso Valley Greenbelt Association HOA, 117 Cal.App.4th 1141 (2004)
    Commissioner Dave Jones
  • Franz v. Golden Rain, No.: 04WS02024 Sample Plaintiff’s Trial Brief, Superior Court of the State of California County of Orange County, West Justice Center
    Commissioner Dave Jones
  • Golden Rain Foundation v. Franz et. al. 163 Cal.App.4th 114 (2008)
    Commissioner Dave Jones
  • Cheney v. Sun City Roseville (Placer County), SC100 – Brief Asserting Jurisdiction of Small Claims Court to Hear HOA Records Cases
    Commissioner Dave Jones
  • Cheney v. Sun City Roseville, (Placer County), Statement of Decision – Judgment Confirming Right to Access Records and Levying Penalties and Costs
    Commissioner Dave Jones
  • Sample Executed Contract Between an Association and a Third Party Debt Collector
    Marjorie Murray
  • SB 561 Fact Sheet
    Marjorie Murray
  • Cal. Civ. Code §§5100-5145 “Association Member Elections”
    Commissioner Dave Jones
  • Assembly Judiciary Analysis of SB1560/Jones and Battin (HOA Member Elections)
    Commissioner Dave Jones
  • Cooke v. The Ranch, (Sacramento County); SC100; SC100 Addendum
    Commissioner Dave Jones
  • Cooke v. The Ranch, (Sacramento County); Entry of Judgment Ordering the Ballot Recount
    Commissioner Dave Jones
  • Battram v. Thoms Creek Estates HOA, Final Amended Complaint
    Marjorie Murray
  • Battram v. Thoms Creek Estates HOA, Order Awarding Costs and Fees to Plaintiff
    Marjorie Murray
  • Battram v. Thoms Creek Estates HOA, Order Awarding Plaintiff's Attorney Fees
    Marjorie Murray
  • Senate Judiciary Analysis of AB1799/Mayes (2016), Legislation to Void Civ. Code §§5100-5145 (Election Statutes)
    Marjorie Murray
  • Letter from Rutgers Law School Constitutional Rights Clinic Opposing AB1799/Mayes
    Marjorie Murray
  • United States of America v. Barna (2012), Indictment U.S. District Court Eastern District
    Marjorie Murray
  • United States v. Barna (2012), Sentencing
    Marjorie Murray
  • United States v. Cornerstone Management and Robert Walsh (2016), Indictment, U.S. District Court Southern District California
    Marjorie Murray
  • Hanson v. JQD, LLC, No: 13-05377 RS, First Amended Class Action Complaint For: 1. Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692, et seq. 2. California Business & Professions Code § 17200
    Justin T. Berger
  • Hanson v. JQD, LLC, No. 13-05377 RS, Order Denying Defendant’s Second Motion to Dismiss
    Justin T. Berger
  • Hanson v. JQD, LLC Exhibit 1, Class Action Settlement
    Justin T. Berger
  • In re Cisneros (2012) Bankr. LEXIS 4561 (Bankr. N.D. Cal. Oct. 1, 2012)
    Justin T. Berger
  • Diamond v. The Superior Court of Santa Clara County 217 Cal. App. 4th 1172 (2013): HOA Lien Notice Requirements Must be Strictly Construed
    Marjorie Murray
  • Huntington Continental v. JM Trust 230 Cal.App.4th 590 (2014); the Association Shall Accept Partial Payments
    Marjorie Murray
  • Amicus from the Center for California Homeowner Association Law to Orange County Appellate Division for Publication of Huntington Continental v. JM Trust (2014)
    Marjorie Murray
  • Minute Order for Publication of Huntington Continental v. JM Trust (2014), 230 Cal.App. 4th 590
    Marjorie Murray
  • Santaella v. The Bridges (Contra Costa County), SC100 and Addendum to Recover Monies Paid Under Protest
    Marjorie Murray
  • Santaella v. The Bridges (Contra Costa County), SC130 Entry of Judgment Awarding Claim and Costs to Homeowner
    Marjorie Murray
  • United States v. Amesbury Plea Agreement (2011) United States District Court State of Nevada: HOA Election Rigging
    Marjorie Murray
  • Wittenberg et al v. Beachwalk Homeowners Association, Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief Under California Civil Code Sections 1363.03 and 1363.09
    Eric M. Schiffer
  • Wittenberg et al v. Beachwalk Homeowners Association (2013), Minute Order Invalidating Election Results
    Eric M. Schiffer
  • Wittenberg et al v. Beachwalk Homeowners Association 217 Cal.App.4th 654 (2013), 158 Cal.Rptr.3d 508
    Eric M. Schiffer
  • Wittenberg et al v. Beachwalk Homeowners Association, No.: 30-2011-00507078, Statement of Decision, California Superior Court County of Orange
    Eric M. Schiffer
  • Wittenberg et al v. Beachwalk Homeowners Association, No.: 30-2011-00507078, Amended Judgment, California Superior Court County of Orange
    Eric M. Schiffer
Chairperson(s)
Marjorie Murray ~ President, Center for California Homeowner Association Law
Speaker(s)
Justin T. Berger ~ Principal, Cotchett Pitre McCarthy, LLP
Commissioner Dave Jones ~ California Insurance Commissioner, California Department of Insurance; former Chair of the California Assembly Judiciary Committee
Eric M. Schiffer ~ Founder, Schiffer & Buus, LLC
General credit information about this format appears below. For credit information specific to this program, please choose your jurisdiction(s) in the Credit Information box on the right-hand side of this page.

PLI’s live and on-demand webcasts are single-user license products intended for an individual registrant only. Credit will be issued only to the individual registered.


U.S. MCLE States

Alabama:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of online programs per reporting period.

Alaska:  All PLI products can fulfill Alaska’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Arizona:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “interactive CLE” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via interactive CLE programs.

Arkansas:  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for Arkansas CLE credit.

California:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “participatory” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via participatory programs.

Colorado:  All PLI products can fulfill Colorado’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Connecticut: Effective January 1, 2017, all PLI products can fulfill Connecticut’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Delaware:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “eCLE” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of eCLE per reporting period, no more than 6 of which may be audio-only.

Florida:  All PLI products can fulfill Florida’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Georgia:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “in-house” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 in-house credits per reporting period.

Hawaii:  All PLI products can fulfill Hawaii’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Idaho:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Illinois:  All PLI products can fulfill Illinois' CLE requirements for experienced attorneys. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Indiana:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance education” credit. Attorneys are limited to 9 credits of distance education per reporting period.

Iowa:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “unmoderated” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of unmoderated programs per reporting period.

Kansas:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “prerecorded” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of prerecorded programs per reporting period.

Kentucky:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “non-live” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 non-live credits per reporting period.

Louisiana:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 4 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Maine:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 5.5 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Minnesota:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 on-demand credits per reporting period.

Mississippi:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of distance learning per reporting period.

Missouri:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Montana:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 5 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Nebraska:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “computer-based learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 5 credits of computer-based learning per reporting period.

Nevada:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via self-study programs.

New Hampshire:  All PLI products can fulfill New Hampshire’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

New Jersey:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “alternative verifiable learning formats” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of alternative verifiable learning formats per reporting period.

New Mexico:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 4 credits of self-study per reporting period.

New York

Experienced Attorneys:  All PLI products can fulfill New York’s CLE requirements for experienced attorneys. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Newly Admitted Attorneys:  PLI’s transitional on-demand web programs can be used to fulfill the requirements for New York newly admitted attorneys. Only professional practice and law practice management credits may be earned via transitional on-demand web programs. Ethics and skills credits may not be earned via on-demand web programs.

North Carolina:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of online programs per reporting period.

North Dakota:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Ohio:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Oklahoma:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online, on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of online, on-demand programs per reporting period.

Oregon:  All PLI products can fulfill Oregon’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Pennsylvania:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of distance learning per reporting period.

Puerto Rico:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “non-traditional” credit. Attorneys are limited to 8 credits of non-traditional programs per reporting period.

Rhode Island:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 3 on-demand credits per reporting period.

South Carolina:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “alternatively delivered” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of alternatively delivered programs per reporting period.

Tennessee:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 8 credits of distance learning per reporting period.

Texas:  All PLI products can fulfill Texas’ CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Utah:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Vermont:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 10 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Virgin Islands:  All PLI products can fulfill the Virgin Islands’ CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Virginia:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “pre-recorded” credit. Attorneys are limited to 8 credits of pre-recorded programs per reporting period.

Washington:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “A/V” credit. Attorneys are limited to 22.5 credits of A/V programs per reporting period.

West Virginia:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of online instruction per reporting period.

Wisconsin:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “repeated, on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 credits of repeated, on-demand programs per reporting period. No ethics credits can be earned via on-demand web programs.

Wyoming:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of self-study per reporting period.


CPD Jurisdictions

British Columbia (CPD-BC):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not eligible for CPD-BC credit unless viewed with at least one other attorney or an articled student. In this case, the credit must be recorded as a “study group.”

Ontario (CPD-ON):  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “recorded” credit. If viewed without a colleague, attorneys are limited to 6 credits of recorded programs per year. If viewed with at least one colleague, there is no limit to the number of credits that can be earned via recorded programs.

Quebec (CPD-QC):  PLI’s on-demand web programs can fulfill Quebec’s CPD requirements.

Hong Kong (CPD-HK):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for CPD-HK credit.

United Kingdom (CPD-UK):  PLI’s on-demand web programs can fulfill the United Kingdom’s CPD requirements.

Australia (CPD-AUS):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill Australia’s CPD requirements. Credit limits for on-demand web programs vary according to jurisdiction. Please refer to your jurisdiction’s CPD information page for specifics.


Other Credit Types

CPE Credit (NASBA):  Select on-demand web programs qualify as “QAS Self-Study” credit. Please check the Credit Information box on the right-hand side of this page to verify CPE credit availability.

IRS Continuing Education (IRS-CE):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill IRS-CE requirements. To request IRS-CE credit, please notify PLI at plicredits@pli.edu of your request and include your Preparer Tax Identification Number (PTIN).

Certified Fraud Examiner CPE:  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill Certified Fraud Examiner CPE requirements. To request CPE credit or find out which programs offer CPE, please contact PLI at plicredits@pli.edu.

IAPP Continuing Privacy Credit (CPE):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill Privacy CPE credit requirements.

HR Recertification (HRCI):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill HR credit requirements.

SHRM Recertification (SHRM):  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as "self-paced" credit. SHRM professionals are limited to 30 credits of self-paced programs per recertification period.

Compliance Certification Board (CCB):  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Candidates are limited to 10 self-study credits per 12-month period, and certification holders are limited to 20 self-study credits per 2-year renewal period.

Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialists Certification (CAMS):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for CAMS credit.

New York State Social Worker Continuing Education (SW CPE):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for SW CPE credit.

American Bankers Association Professional Certification (ABA):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill ABA credit requirements.

Certified Financial Planners (CFP):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for CFP credit.

 

Share
Email

  • FOLLOW PLI:
  • twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • GooglePlus
  • RSS

All Contents Copyright © 1996-2018 Practising Law Institute. Continuing Legal Education since 1933.

© 2018 PLI PRACTISING LAW INSTITUTE. All rights reserved. The PLI logo is a service mark of PLI.