help finding an attorney

I've been making calls all day and can't seem to find a lawyer who seems like he knows condo law.
I describe my situation, and say it's very similar to Cohen v Kite. The HOA has granted a variance that is harmful to me. So i ask the attorney are you familiar with Cohen v Kite? and no one has a clue.
As far as i can tell Cohen v Kite is one of the most important HOA case law.
I don't feel like paying someone to read it.
Shouldn't a good condo lawyer know that case?
This is probably not allowed on this site, but does anyone know someone who knows California condo law?

I work with attorneys and despite what you may think, they really don't know everything. That doesn't mean they're incompetent - they may not specialize on condo law, or they haven't had situations where they've needed to look at that case. You may think Cohen v Kite is similar to your situation and perhaps it is, but to know for certain, you need someone who's familar with legal research and state condo law to help you determine that. I've seen the Davis-Stirling website - lots of good information there, but even then, there could be nuances in your case which can turn things upside down.

Most people here aren't attorneys, including me, which is why I personally try not to say the law says x and therefore the HOA board can or cant do Y or Z. We come from different states and what's true in california may be different in Nevada or New York. Sometimes there's no state law on various subjects at all - this is why law clearks were invented to research all this stuff.

If you're thinking of going after the HOA in court, do it right, otherwise you may get your ass handed back to you in court if they don't laugh you out of the place. Try contacting your state or local bar association for a referral to a condo attorney. Other HOA property management companies might also know someone you can call.

Yes, you will need to pay someone to look at what you have, so accept it. You can and should ask what to expect and pay during your first meeting (you're paying for his/her time, remember?) You may not get all the answers you seek in one sitting - the attorney will probably have to look at whatever documents you have and then call in his or her paralegal or law clerk to do the donkey work before you get his/her suggestions. Keep an open mind - if you don't like the recommendation, you can get someone else, but at the same time, there's a chance YOU may be in the wrong and don't want to accept that.

Can you describe the granted variance?

The people on the forum have far more experience than most attorney that claim to know corporate law or interpreting association documents. I suggest you give more details on your particular issue before reaching out to an attorney.

In CA, Steve, condos and single family homes, etc. that are in HOAs are covered by Common Interest Development legislation-- the Davis-Stirling Act. So looking for a "condo" attorney isn't quite right. The firm that Augustin notes should have a branch near you.

I'd say that if an individual HOA attorney doesn't know all case law, you might not want to rule her/j him out. To get an idea about what I mean, look at the list of Case Law at Davis-stirling.com.

Try the Kushner Carlson Law Firm in Orange County.

Kushner Calson. Saw there add a few days back. I'll try on monday-thanks

Having served on our board when we had two different HOA lawyers, I'd say gthe weakness of each was being unwilling or unable to pay close enough attention to our own govenering documents. One did admit they are among the top 10 most complicated of 100 sets he'd amended over the years. But still, he misses things that surprised me.

On the other hand, CA HOA law is perhaps way more complex than in other states so knowing it really well seems important. So....maybe a litigator who has a record with HOA litigation?

Steve I would NOT just copy Cohen v. Kite Hill--bad idea.

Paul,
I'm hoping I can sign up Augastin .

Cohen v. Kite Hill (1983) is one hilarious read. I quote:

-- "This is an appeal from a judgment of dismissal entered after an order sustaining the demurrer of defendant, Kite Hill Community Association (the Association), to the plaintiffs' fourth amended complaint. Because we conclude that the plaintiffs finally succeeded in pleading a cause of action, we shall reverse the judgment."

-- " ... [T]he Declaration also contains several so-called "exculpatory" clauses. These clauses purport to absolve the Association from any affirmative duty to enforce any of the covenants, conditions and restrictions in the Declaration, and to immunize the Association from liability for any of its acts of malfeasance or nonfeasance. ... Moreover, just in case any doubt remained as to the intent to establish the Association's immunity to suit, Article XVI, section 12 provides... "

-- "The Association advanced the proposition (during oral argument) that the Committee's approval of improvement plans could be "arbitrary" as to an individual homeowner, yet reasonable in light of the overriding interests of the community. Nonsense. ..."

-- "Therefore, we hold that the exculpatory provisions contained in the Declaration constitute no bar to suit against the Association."

The California Appeals Court decision in Cohen v. Kite Hill is only a ruling throwing out the lower court's dismissal on a "demurrer." Said demurrer is unrelated to the plaintiffs' core arguments. I imagine the case was sent back to the lower court for trial. Or the case may have been settled.

With somewhat more research, I think the plaintiffs' fourth amended complaint (concerning a HOA's approval of a fence not allowed by the Declaration) may very well be a template for SteveA7's own complaint (concerning his HOA's approval of a floor not allowed by the Declaration).

But before court and per California statute, first IDR needs to be wrapped up. Then ADR needs to be attempted. I am observing from afar these steps for a group of HOA members in California. They are using a remarkable attorney. Then again, this group is expert on the governing documents and HOA law and can speak analytically and articulately on same. In my opinion, this has greatly facilitated their progress.

I do not agree that attorneys for HOA members are so out of reach.

I am not an attorney. My email addie is [email protected]

Steve, I agree, and this is consistent with what appears to me to be a general rule in the United States regarding HOAs and either (1) variances; or (2) looking the other way while someone violates covenants.

I would not trust your condo's directors further than I could throw them. I am sorry so much teeth pulling is necessary. You are doing your neighbors a huge favor.

I am a lawyer and have worked with numerous HOA lawyers.

I stand by my statements.

You certainly have that right, but your comments are inaccurate and advice considerably off-base.

A little humility might serve you well, sir, BWTFDIK....?

You do realize that many lawyers and judges live in HOA's themselves?

Myself would not hire a Real Estate attorney. Your really not dealing with property. A HOA is a corporation. So you are dealing with more contractual or corporate laws. There's nothing wrong with hiring a "general" lawyer to draft a few letters but not sure want one to go to litigation if it's a bigger case than small claims.

Lawyers also don't like you going on about this case law and that case law. It doesn't make you a better or easier client. Lawyers are paid/Licensed to PRACTICE law. You are not. So let them do their job. Your case law quotes don't help anyone.

I am always very wary of a lawyer who tells me "I will do what you tell me to do...". That puts up a red flag to me. Investigate a bit more of what they mean by that... It's not all bad. Just need to clarify that there isn't other options. Those options of course NOT taking a lawyer...

Exactly- which is why I was so taken aback by the post above that one HOA lawyer didn't follow those documents. They're not rocket science, and figuring them out is Job #1 of a lawyer.

My case is that my CC&Rs have rules for installing hardwood floors. The floors need to be tested for sound transmission after install.
The CC&Rs were not followed, no test was done, (they would have failed spectacularly) but the owner who installed the floors was granted a variance. No test needed- thus the quote from the courts stating Variance and it's effect on the neighbors.
I'm the downstairs guy.
Sorry i should have explained my case earlier.

PaulJ6
I tried that with the Cohen v Kite lawyers but i think the case was 1983, and i couldn't track them down.
I'll try with the other case law and see what happens. Thanks a great -suggestion.

I am in Florida, and like your suggestion very much, if you can't help me, then could you refer me one I don't mind if is not in my town next to Tampa, I need advise and possible a couple of letters.
Thank you

Happy to speak with you about your matter to see if it makes sense for you to consider engaging my services. If you would like to have that conversation, please post an email address I can use to reach you. (I don't charge for the conversation.)

Try www.martindale.com

Search by location under Homeowners Association Law.