John Kirkham Law
  • Home
  • Why Update
  • John
  • Residential
  • Commercial
  • HOA Law Blog
  • FAQ
  • Reviews
  • Request Proposal

Senate Bill 323: Making Associations Great Again.

10/24/2019

 
SB 323 adds new Civil Code section 5105(c)(4), which provides that an association may disqualify a candidate for the board “if that person discloses, or if the association is aware or becomes aware of, a past criminal conviction that would, if the person was elected, either prevent the association from purchasing the fidelity bond coverage required by [Civil Code s]ection 5806 or terminate the association’s existing fidelity bond coverage.”
This optional qualification raises a number of questions and problems, both for associations which adopt it and those which do not:

- Most fidelity policies do not delineate, on a crime-by-crime basis, what convictions constitute grounds for cancellation. Instead, a broad “dishonest acts” clause is used. Brokers are unlikely to prove informative on this front, and may in fact be barred from opining by law or company policy.

- Effective January 1, 2019, specific fidelity coverage is now required by Civil Code section 5806. What are boards to do if their available marketplace of insurers indicate that they will decline to offer or terminate fidelity coverage if a candidate is elected to the board, but the insurers' grounds are not a past criminal conviction?

- In a related vein, what if the available marketplace does not prevent purchase or terminate, but instead prohibitively prices premiums. Is there any markup which would permit a valid disqualification? 

- For associations which do adopt this qualification and “become aware” of a candidate’s past criminal conviction, this invites fraudulent concealment from their insurer, which could in and of itself threaten coverage.

- Civil Code section 5135 currently prohibits associations from using association funds to advocate for the election or defeat of any candidate. If a board becomes aware of a candidate's history that would jeopardize its mandatory Civil Code section 5806 coverage, but the grounds do not permit a valid SB 323 disqualification, is there any way the board can discharge its apparent fiduciary duty to communicate that information to the membership prior to the vote?

- SB 323's new
Civil Code section 5100(g)(3)(B)(i)'s fidelity coverage qualification differs from the fidelity coverage qualification set forth in SB 323's new Civil Code section 5105(c)(4). The former permits past-crimes disqualifications if the crime would terminate fidelity coverage as to that person, while the latter permits past-crimes disqualifications if the coverage would be terminated per se. If, as discussed in other blog posts, Section 5100(g) applies to all elections, this represents a conflict if the threatened termination is only to the person.

An exciting new minefield.

Comments are closed.
    HOA Law Blog

    A thrilling blog that isn't legal advice about California HOA law. Reposts and reprints with attribution.

    Topics:
    ​

    All
    Assembly Bill 3182
    Assembly Bill 502
    Assembly Bill 670
    Senate Bill 222
    Senate Bill 234
    Senate Bill 323
    Senate Bill 392
    Senate Bill 432
    Senate Bill 754

John Kirkham Law

Common interest expertise.

Current, comprehensive, carefully-tailored HOA governing documents.

Cost-effective fees.
Disclaimer

​I created this site for informational and advertising purposes. It is not intended to serve as and should not be relied on for legal advice. No attorney-client relationship exists until I am retained pursuant to the terms of my fee agreement. Don't make things weird.
​Copyright 2022 John Kirkham. All rights reserved.
  • Home
  • Why Update
  • John
  • Residential
  • Commercial
  • HOA Law Blog
  • FAQ
  • Reviews
  • Request Proposal