News and Articles

Common Interest Community Law

21


Jan

HERE COMES THE SUN


 

Read More »

LinkedIn Twitter Facebook Email

03


Dec

Here Come The Lawyers


 

Read More »

LinkedIn Twitter Facebook Email

02


Dec

CA LEGISLATURE CLARIFIES RESPONSIBILITY FOR EXCLUSIVE USE COMMON AREAS

 

Read More »

LinkedIn Twitter Facebook Email

18


Nov

California HOA May Not Refuse to Accept Partial Payments For Delinquent Assessments

Huntington Continental Townhouse Association v. Joseph A. Miner  

Read More »
LinkedIn Twitter Facebook Email

13


Oct

Buying HOA Foreclosures in NV? Beware of recorded first deeds.


While the Nevada Supreme Court’s September 18, 2014 decision in SFR Investments Pool 1 v. U.S. Bank, 2014 WL 4656471 (Nev. Sept. 18, 2014) held that a lender’s first trust deed might be eliminated upon the foreclosure of a homeowner association’s assessment lien in light of it’s super priority status, a number of grounds exist which could prevent this from happening. This quick note will address one such basis. On Sept. 25, 2014, the United Stated District Court issued an opinion in which it held that the foreclosure of an assessment lien ineffective against HUD. In that case, the owners had purchased a Las Vegas home with an FHA insured loan. They subsequently defaulted both on the loan and on their assessments to their homeowners association. The Association then conducted a no judicial foreclosure. Thereafter, Bank of America foreclosed. The Association however, took no action to quiet title to the property as to bank of America. . Two weeks after the bank’s foreclosure, Bank of America conveyed title to the property to HUD pursuant to its the FHA insurance contract. The Association later filed suit to quiet its title as against HUD, and for damages for slander of title against HUD and BOA. The court denied the Association’s claims on the basis of federal preemption.

According to the Court, “State legislation must yield under the supremacy clause of the Constitution to the interests of the federal government when the legislation as applied interferes with the federal purpose or operates to impede or condition the implementation of federal policies and programs.” Rust v. Johnson, 597 F.2d 174, 179 (9th Cir. 1979). The Court found that if the an association’s foreclosure were allowed to stand as against HUD’s claim, it would “operate to impede or condition the implementation of federal policies and programs.” Hence, under the principle of federal preemption, the court declared that the association’s foreclosure was unconstitutional and void. Since the Association’s foreclosure had taken place prior to the lender’s conveyance to HUD, and the association’s lien was superior to Bank of America’s, it would seem that the transfer to HUD was void. Consequently, the Court’s rationale would appear to be dubious at best.

For more information contact:

Matthew L. Grode, Esq.
Gibbs Giden Locher Turner Senet & Wittbrodt LLP
7450 Arroyo Crossing Parkway
Las Vegas, NV 89113
Phone: (702) 836-9800
email: mgrode@ggltsw.com

The content contained herein is published online by Gibbs Giden Locher Turner Senet & Wittbrodt LLP ("Gibbs Giden") for informational purposes only, may not reflect the most current legal developments, verdicts or settlements, and does not constitute legal advice. Do not act on the information contained herein without seeking the advice of licensed counsel. For specific questions about any of the content discussed herein or any of the content posted to this website please contact the article attorney author or send an email to info@ggltsw.com. The transmission of information on this, the Gibbs Giden website, or any transmission or exchange of information over the Internet, or by any of the included links is not intended to create and does not constitute an attorney-client relationship. For a complete description of the terms of use of this website please see the Legal Disclaimer section at http://www.ggltsw.com/ggltsw-legal. This publication may not be reproduced or used in whole or in part without written consent of the firm.
Copyright 2014 Gibbs Giden Locher Turner Senet & Wittbrodt LLP
 

Read More »
LinkedIn Twitter Facebook Email

19


Sep

Nevada Supreme Court Ruling

The Nevada Supreme Court has ruled, after much delay, that the non judicial foreclosure of a delinquent assessment lien by a common interest community extinguished the lien of the lender’s first trust deed. As noted by the Court “With limited exceptions, this lien is ‘prior to all — other liens and encumbrances’ on the homeowner’s property, even a first deed of trust recorded before the dues became delinquent,” To read this very important decision, download here.  

Read More »

LinkedIn Twitter Facebook Email

27


Sep

California Community Interest Law Update

ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING STATIONS AND THEIR IMPACT ON COMMON INTEREST

The California legislature recently enacted Senate Bill No. 209 (codified as Civil Code Section 1353.9) which expressly mandates that those provisions of governing documents that prohibit or unreasonably restrict the installation or use of an electric vehicle charging station (“EVCS”) is void and unenforceable. 

Read More »

LinkedIn Twitter Facebook Email

30


Sep

Nevada Community Interest News: OUT WITH THE OLD

OUT WITH THE OLD (…WELL YOU KNOW THE REST)

Unquestionably, service on the Board of Directors for common interest community is a thankless position. Verbal abuse, threats of physical violence, long unpaid hours and telephone calls regarding members often insignificant problems in the middle night are the primary benefits received for such efforts. Occasionally, disgruntled owners seek to vent their frustration or further their personal agendas by targeting one or more members of the Board of Directors for removal. Of course, there are bad board members who occasionally deserve to be removed (and in some cases, imprisoned!). 

Read More »

LinkedIn Twitter Facebook Email

30


Sep

California Community Interest News: SAVING FOR A RAINY DAY

SAVING FOR A RAINY DAY – RESERVE OR ELSE . . .

There has been much confusion concerning Associations’ legal duty to set aside funds for future repairs and/or for the replacement of major components. Hopefully, this Article will provide some clarity relative to this issue. By law, Associations with common areas are required to prepare a Reserve Study at least once every three (3) years. An exception to this requirement exists where the replacement value of all major components is less than one half of an Association’s gross budget. Generally, this exception only applies to Association’s with extremely limited common area elements. The study is intended to: 

Read More »

LinkedIn Twitter Facebook Email