Package Notification Mailing list

My building has a receiving desk that receives all packages for the building, and we get email notifications when a package arrives, and also notifications from management. My understanding is that list should be made available to unit owners, since the email list is opt-in. The recent court rulings seem to indicate that just because the condo has your email doesn't make it community property, but if you allow them to use it for delivery notification then it becomes community property. Is this correct?

Because the court decision said it is? What's the point of giving he association a fake email for delivery notification?

Surely as a former president you know the issues with roster vs email. The laws are always 10 years behind on technology. For many years, the roster with phone numbers was available to all unit owners. The court determined that email address that unit owners have given permission to use for association business can also be requested by unit owners.

Actually case law would be WORLDMARK, THE CLUB v. WYNDHAM RESORT DEVELOPMENT CORP. (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 1017. While the matter involved a timeshare, both are identified as corporations and the case is published.

In California, the right to membership lists come from our Corporations Code.

I am not saying one should not know who is a member of their HOA. That's pretty much public information. You have the address you can look them up. Also can go to tax assessor's office to find out as well. (Atleast last in 6 months as it's not always timely).

However, I don't believe personal information like email, phone numbers or outside HOA address should be provided. My rule of thumb has always been if you want to contact members you use the address at their door. Just make sure to put a stamp on it if it's in a mailbox. Certain rules like "No solicitation" may prevent one from going door to door directly. It will be on your dime and time if you want to contact.

I would still use a "fake" email address even for delivery purposes. Of course, I am into protecting my identity wherever I can.

Published case law can be used anywhere in the country, not just Californian.

Timeshares are corporations. IF you read the case, the same subject matter applies to HOA's. Wyndham Resort is n Oregon Corporation.

First, associations that want to use email to save monies are required to have members opt-in to use that vehicle. Who is the association? It could be the Board, it could be an agent, such as the management company, it could also be its members or homeowners. There is already case law that required equal access when campaigning. The same can be said for communicating with the membership.

You're right, timeshares are not HOA's, but the case was fought as a corporation, not a timeshare or an HOA. While Civil Code §5200 says the owners have the right to inspect and copy membership list, Corporation Code §8330 is more exactly in the matter in which it is intended to be used.

It is only a manner of time before an HOA will make it official for HOA's.

As to the concierge package, a number of HOA software packages have that feature as an option and is useful if you happen to manage mid or high rise complexes and an on-site staff.

I do not see this as a big thing. I have several Email addresses and use them for specific things such as HOA business, family, social, etc. Email address are like tissues. Use and discard.

HOApackage(at)gmail.com

It's called EQUAL access. You need to think about it.

I believe "delivery notification" applies to delivery of notices from the association to the owner. Not package delivery.

I read Fla. Section 718.111(12) and the sub-sub section to which it refers and it does seem that: If an owner provides the email info to the Association for notification of HOA biz, that email address also is available to anyone who wants it.

But I don't trust my reading of this. With Geno, I'd like to see the court cases referred to. I also don't know if this is the same for Fla. 720.

In Florida, and for Condos, it appears homeowners have the ability to request membership lists and if the associations maintain such a list which also includes email addresses, then homeowners in condos are allowed that access.

In California, if a homeowner requests a membership list, we cite Corporation Code and its rules for using that list. Civil Code only says an owner is allowed to inspect and copy. Members have the ability top op-out at any time if they like. If you don't want things sent by email, don't include your email address. Email is much more effective than snail mail.

The court case I referenced is a timeshare, BUT more importantly it was argued as a corporation, which all HOA's are, or at least treated as such. Corporation Code outlines how that list is not to be used. §8338 outlines penalties for its misuse.

In a case involving a timeshare corporation not governed by the Davis-Stirling Act, the court of appeals in Worldmark v. Wyndham Resort interpreted the word "addresses" in Corporations Code §8330(a) to include email addresses for purposes of a member's inspection and copying rights.

Applicability to HOAs? The courts have not ruled on whether it applies to common interest developments. An argument can be made that HOAs are governed by a similar but more restrictive provision in Civil Code §5200 which allows members to inspect and copy "Membership lists, including name, property address, and mailing address." If an association maintains a membership list with everyone's email address and if a California appellate court decides that the Worldmark decision applies to homeowner associations, boards would then be required to provide membership lists that include email addresses to those members who request it (except for those homeowners who opt out of the membership list).

Argument Against. At least one lower court decided that the WorldMark case does not apply to associations governed by the Davis-Stirling Act. Lower court decisions are not binding on other courts or other parties. Nonetheless, this decision shows that at least one court, when faced with an actual controversy and having had an opportunity to analyze the WorldMark case in detail, found that it did not apply. The court recognized that the law does not require associations to maintain a list of members’ email addresses and that members who give their email addresses to the association so that they can receive communications from the association should not be forced to receive unsolicited emails from fellow members.

Corporate Asset. A membership list is a corporate asset. (Corp. Code §8338(a).) Without the consent of the board a membership list may not be:

(1) Used to solicit money or property unless such money or property will be used solely to solicit the vote of the members in an election to be held by their corporation.

(2) Used for any purpose which the user does not reasonably and in good faith believe will benefit the corporation.

(3) Used for any commercial purpose or purpose in competition with the corporation.

(4) Sold to or purchased by any person.

Baby steps. Those things were enacted in 2017 for condo associations but not HOAs. The Florida Bar Association has already drafted proposed "glitch" bills to be considered in 2018 that un-do most of the criminal penalties. There's no way the 2017 reforms will be extended to cover HOAs. It's already an uphill fight to prevent the lawmakers from rolling back the progress made in 2017.

One of the "glitch" bills would allow condo associations to sidestep mandated term limits by a simple amendment to the bylaws. The term limits imposed in 2017 are so easy to get around it's not funny. They limit a director to serving no more than 4 consecutive 2-year terms. If an association has the terms of directors something other than 2 years, the limits do not apply anyway.

So I respectfully disagree that things are getting better in Florida. We'll see what 2018 brings but I don't have much hope for legislative improvements to condo/HOA life.

The reason is that the 2 year staggered terms are designed to maintain control of the condo. If they run every year you have an opportunity to remove them every year. with staggered terms it takes 2 years and you can't get rid of all of the bad seeds at once.

There is a case, WITTENBURG v. BEACHWALK HOMEOWNERS ASSN.(2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 654, which involves equal access when campaigning. The law firm that defended the association is the same one that you happen to like their opinions. They lost that case and it cost the association $250K in legal fees.

We maintain email lists for associations through our software. We communicate to owners via email as long as they allow us via the required opt-in and opt-in. If that same law firm representing an association did they same thing it would cost another association potentially the same amount of money.

Thats great when you have a functional condo with an engaged community. When you have 7 friends who appoint other friends (and they probably forge ballots), it's more difficult. We have condos here in SFL where the board has been the same for 15 years. Someone new gets on, and they run them off by shutting them out; one board member was forced off because they dug up dirt on his wife. Theynthey appoint a loyal friend.

If they say they're going to file charges against your wife if you don't resign, how is that not being forced off? Welcome to the real world.

Trust me Kerry, I have much more knowledge and experience in this than you.

You need to know which code handle the subject. Civil Code allows an owner to inspect and copy, but when asked to provide a membership list, it is always Corporation Code because it provides the parameters by which the information can be used.

There are number of opinions that I disagree with on the davis-stirling.com site. And there are a number of law firms that also disagree, but that is par for the course. The davis-stirling site disagreed with providing email addresses, but my attorney disagrees with them, as well as some others I have talked with. Email is how the world communications now days. Snail mail is old technology, and when Worldmark v. Wyndham Resort is challenged for an HOA, emails will be allowed. If you don't want your email address maintained by an HOA, don't provide one, or opt-out when the annual disclosures come out.

I think the davis-stirling site is one of the best, if not the best, in the country. I use it quite often as it is free legal advise/opinion. Unfortunately, there are a number of opinions I don't agree with. I bookmark about 50 HOA law firms in California and I refer to them from time to time. I read relevant court case, from start to finish.

From my research, there is NO case law that says you can't give out email addresses. Besides, Florida allows it.

As you know, Richard, the CA Davis Stirling Act's document inspections section do not permit CIDs to give out email addresses or phone numbers to Owners who request them. Our HOA does not and will not unless some legislation gives us the go-ahead. We do want Owners to opt in to receiving many HOA materials online and some would refuse if they knew every owner had access to their email addy.

If I or any owner asks for someone's email address, whch is rare, our PM emails that person to get permission.