Our Legal Council Did a Great Job?

This is provided to you as an example of what an HOA Attorney can do for an HOA and how much it cost us. Our Community is not rich and the people on this Board are blue collar. Having access to an attorney is really something they never have had.

After more than a years of legal action, our HOA was awarded a judgement against a homeowner of three bedroom unit at Harbour Vista. Even though the HOA legal expenses had exceeded over $100K ($555 per homeowner) against this one family, our HOA did not give up and was able to identify a safety that affect all owners of an upper story 3 bedroom units. If a static load of 600 lbs or more is placed in the middle of the dinning room area of this type unit, as the State License Structural Engineer hired by they HOA testified and whose analysis was accepted by the court, the “floor will fail”.

Stop Work Order

The floor safety issue was not obvious in the beginning. When the HOA placed a stop work order it was for plumbing and removal of a load bearing wall. But when these issues were investigated, the City had approved these modification with approval drawing by a State License Architect and an analysis by a State License Structural Engineer.

Did Not Leave It There

But our HOA knew something was fishy. They proceeded to hire in their own Structural Engineer and a contractor to investigate this matter in more detail.

The HOA Investigates

For the investigation, our Board requesting that the homeowner remove part of their dinning room floor to investigate the running of electrical cable. The homeowner was creating an “open concept kitchen” by combining the kitchen and dinning room areas into one space. This area had demonstrated deflection when there HOA contractor jump on the center. Even though the homeowner did provide the City Permits showing that this have been inspected, meet code and the City even provided documentation stating that the deflection was built in to the buildings when it constructed, our HOA wanted to make sure that there was no funny business. One member of the Board stated that the City will approve anything as long as they are paid for the permits.

Thank You HOA

But when the HOA inspection under the floor, the electrical wiring did meet code and it was concluded that the deflection was part of the original construction. The homeowner actually thank the HOA for exposing the deflection issue. It was also obvious that the exposed cement covering of the subfloor floor seem be to fragile. Though this cement covering meet code when the building was built 30 years ago, this kind of cement subfloor does not meet the current State building code. When homeowner removed the old cement for the inspection, the City required them to use a better grade of cement to cover the area. After doing so, most of the deflection in that area had disappeared. The homeowner actually thanks the HOA for the inspection as it resulted in strengthening this area in the condo.

Safety Issue Now Discovered

Even with two previous setbacks and the investment of large amount of HOA funds in legal and consulting fee, our HOA did not give up. They now targeted the proposed Island as a new safety issue. Just prior to trial, the HOA Legal Council submitted an engineering study that stated that the floor “would fail” if a 600lb island was installed. Though the 3 bedroom homeowner were able to obtain three engineering studies that said it was safe, representing themselves a court and with no attorney, our HOA legal council was able to prevent this evidence from being submitted because of a procedural issue. One Board member has stated, that he does not trust the three bedroom homeowner analysis by State License Engineers as they were paid by them. The only reports that the Board will accept are the one that the HOA pays for.

Impeccable Untainted Evidence

With the HOA provided such impeccable untainted evidence, the Judge awarded a judgement against the three bedroom homeowner for breach of contract (not obtaining permission) and all legal cost which amount to over $100K. The judge then told the three bedroom homeowner that they would could still obtain approval from the HOA for their remodeling-by possibly using different materials.

Asking For Permission

After the trial, the three bedroom homeowner asked the Board for permission to complete their remodeling project. In a show of compassion, our HOA Board told the three bedroom homeowner that they could maintain their new “Open Concept Kitchen” floor plan. But because of the safety issue, they would not be allowed to install any island in the dinning room area.

Did a Great Job

One must congratulate the Board for pursuing this prosecution. Other Board might have lacked this due diligence and would have not been will to invest the large legal fees for this judgement. Even though Banks are now rejecting real estate load on the property because of our breach of contract litigation (one just recently fell through for that reason in the last couple of weeks), our Board prevailed. Our HOA exposed this safety issue which protects all residents. It will be only a matter of time before homeowner will send out letters to upper story three bedroom homeowners warning from the HOA to avoid installing or placing 600lbs items such as an islands, pianos, heavy tables or pool tables in this area. This issue must also be disclosed when selling these units. There might even be a guidance to limit the number of persons present in the dinning area. It would also be a good idea for the HOA to send a complaint letter to the City of Huntington Beach for originally approving this installation as safe.

Does this danger only affect static loads? Will the floor fail if three people are huddled at a table?

This brings back memories of when I lived in an apartment. We were not allowed to own waterbeds. It was in the lease agreement. Which people don't realize can cause some structural issues due to the weight. So I can understand the concern. It is valid.

However, I question if it's HOA responsibility or in their scope? I can understand if this was an outside balcony and the HOA was responsible. It also makes sense to have restrictions on wood flooring on above floors. Multifloor buildings do have some additional codes/structural issues to deal with.

Is this issue going to be put into the CC&R's or already there? What kind of actions can the HOA take outside of a lawsuit to have this removed. How do they monitor? Does the HOA have the right to enter a property to do such inspections?

It's a good thing your HOA went above and beyond what it needed too. However, it's also time to incorporate the lessons learned and set boundaries...

Melissa, as this is in a Condominium, it would fall under the Associations authority.

In Condos, the Association is typically responsible for all elements between the drywall of the shell of the unit between units.
The owner has responsibility from the drywall and into the unit itself.

OK, a little different than I thought, I was under the impression that these were townhouses or something. My mistake.

My first question is which attorney kept loosing the plans? And why resubmit them? This is something that a building department would not entertain in the least unless the permit had expired due to time or if their had been a substantial and fundamental alteration to the original scope.

But back to the issue. Commonly in bigger structures like this condo, the structural aspects are owned by the HOA (or its equivalent). So permits or not, a owner could not tear down a bearing wall without the consent of the association. This is not something a building department would become involved in, it would be viewed as a civil mater. But ownership of the structure should be clear in the CC&Rs. Noise and the like are bylaw violations, and nothing that could attack the permit. Why your lawyer attacked via the bylaws is a little odd, unless ownership of the structure is not clear, or is in fact owned by the HO.

Altering the load path of a big type V building can be no little chore, and going from a bearing wall to point loads back down to a bearing wall in the unit below is tricky. But is there was a permit issued, then this was clearly brought to multiple engineers attention and dealt with accordingly.

So why another engineer would fail this is odd.

And a jump test proves nothing.

I find it unbelievable that an island could cause a floor to fail. 600 pounds is clearly within the load range of several adults, and within the design limit of a resident structure in PSF. Furthermore, if I guess a little bit, there may be a bearing wall under or nearby because that is the common result when a wall is removed between a kitchen and dining room.

Yea. The board either did not own the structure, which likely meant they could only contest it via bylaw ordinances and fines, or the structure is own by the HOA which means all stop, you can't proceed. Why attack the engineering, and how a court could decide to listen to one PE versus the owners PE and the review by Huntington Beaches plan review PE is beyond me.

Our condo HOA also has CC&Rs prohibiting water beds, but it's about the possible water damage done to units below than it is about weight. We also have a prohibition against fish tanks of more than xx gal/water for the same reason.

Our ARC requires a engineer's opinion on certain interior proposed changes usually involving bearing walls.

Michael's discussion & writing style seem very familiar, maybe someone's interested in reviewing his earlier posts. I seem to remember that it sometimes seemed that he was the Owner involved and sometimes like an interested neighbor or friend...

I don't see how that works. Water weighs 62 pounds per cubic foot, so:

5'X6.5'X(8/12)'X62=1,343 pounds

You have a lot of water to get rid of to get down to 175 pounds.

Damn! I think I confused the weight of a gallon of water with the weight of a cubic foot of water.

Never mind!

All good points. I think likely that the HOA or the OP is misusing or misunderstanding the term deflection. I would think the building was designed at least at L/240, if not likely higher. It could have conceivably been designed at only L/180, which could cause alarm on a 15' span. Such a deflection could cause the eventual failure of hard surface floors like stone or tile, and possibly even the gypcrete, but not a structural failure.

I still don't get how removing a bearing wall is causing these issues on the floor.

Lots here we don't know, and the OP isn't very clear about what happened.

For the homeowner to obtain the building permits, the City required an approved Architectural drawings. The architect required an Engineering study for the load bearing wall. The architectural drawings showed the Island and the plans were approved by the City. At no time did the City consider this remodeling unsafe.

I am nether the plaintiff or the defendant. I was recently elected as the Spokesperson for the Architecture Committee by the committee. This happen after all this legal stuff had started and just prior to the trial--though I did know the defendant since February of last year when I heard about their trouble. There was no Architectural Committee in place when this member submitted their application. The Board acted as the Architecture Committee. I think this condo "open concept kitchen" design was over the Boards head and they did not know what to do. Our HOA have never published any Architectural Guidelines. The Architecture Committee where I am Spokesperson is working to fix that. This problem started under the an old board who did not run for re-election at the last minute. We only had one candidate on the ballot. Four people stood up as write-ins. This new Board then continue this legal stuff with the attorney.

Good luck to he OP, you've been thrust into a mess

From the story, it sounds like it was a vindictive board that had something out for this owner since they were continually fishing for anything that they could use to create hardship for this person. I wouldn't congratulate them for anything.

Me too. It sounded like a vendetta against an owner who did not have the board's favor.