Proposed new law contradicts existing law

Started by TerriS6 • 64 replies • 784 views

💬 Join us to post & get advice from 50,000 HOA & Condo leaders.

⚡ Takes 30 seconds

Already a member? Log in

TerriS6 (California)
Posts: 3,284

Posted:

Existing law at Civil Code 4350.(c) says an operating rule to be valid and enforceable must not conflict with governing law AND the declaration.... And at section 4365., an operating rule can be overturned by the membership.

Supposing the declaration such as ours requires a secret written ballot.

The proposed law at 5115.(f) says notwithstanding contrary provisions in the governing documents, an election may be conducted entirely by mail AND electronic secret ballot. Sections 5105, 5110., say a board can adopt operating rules re electronic ballots.

So what happens if AB2159 passes and boards start making operating rules allowing electronic voting when the declaration and other governing documents require written paper ballots - as state law currently requires?

ElleN (Idaho)
Posts: 4,420

Posted:

Civil Code 4205 (a) To the extent of any conflict between the governing documents and the law, the law shall prevail.

In California, the HOA's governing documents include the HOA's rules and regulations.

I believe the rules for statutory interpretation say that, for one, 4205 (a) "controls" when read with 4350(c).

Otherwise and for one thing, people would argue that 4205(d) trumps 4205(a). But if the latter were true, then 4205 would not make logical sense.

It's called a hierarchy for a reason.

SheliaH (Indiana)
Posts: 6,964

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By TerriS6 on 06/12/2024 9:01 AM
Existing law at Civil Code 4350.(c) says an operating rule to be valid and enforceable must not conflict with governing law AND the declaration.... And at section 4365., an operating rule can be overturned by the membership.

Supposing the declaration such as ours requires a secret written ballot.

The proposed law at 5115.(f) says notwithstanding contrary provisions in the governing documents, an election may be conducted entirely by mail AND electronic secret ballot. Sections 5105, 5110., say a board can adopt operating rules re electronic ballots.

So what happens if AB2159 passes and boards start making operating rules allowing electronic voting when the declaration and other governing documents require written paper ballots - as state law currently requires?

It's a PROPOSAL, not a law (yet). If you have concerns, why not contact the people on the committee that's reviewing the bill? You can include the language in your own documents and perhaps this will lead to discussion and amendments. Legislation bills frequently get sliced and diced before being voted out of committee and to the legislature house for a vote and forwarding to the other legislative house. Assuming it gets that far because the majority of bills die without getting a committee hearing. You might not be a professional lobbyist (in which case wining and dining, plus a campaign contribution would take care of this), but occasionally legislators actually listen to the people who elected them. If your representative isn't on this committee, send a letter to him or her anyway and see what happens.

If the thing passes, it would appear your documents may need to be updated to allow electronic voting, in which case you may as well add procedures to ensure the vote is counted in front of the homeowners by independent counters and that the electrical system is secured in a way to ensure confidentiality of how one voted as well as all votes being cast by homeowners in good standing (whatever that means in your community).

If it is not right do not do it; if it is not true do not say it. Marcus Aurelius

TerriS6 (California)
Posts: 3,284

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By ElleN on 06/12/2024 10:04 AM
Civil Code 4205 (a) To the extent of any conflict between the governing documents and the law, the law shall prevail.

In California, the HOA's governing documents include the HOA's rules and regulations.

I believe the rules for statutory interpretation say that, for one, 4205 (a) "controls" when read with 4350(c).

Otherwise and for one thing, people would argue that 4205(d) trumps 4205(a). But if the latter were true, then 4205 would not make logical sense.

It's called a hierarchy for a reason.

What about when they are both laws? One law says a rule must not conflict with the declaration. The other law would say a rule can conflict with the declaration?

ElleN (Idaho)
Posts: 4,420

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By TerriS6 on 06/12/2024 11:33 AM

What about when they are both laws? One law says a rule must not conflict with the declaration. The other law would say a rule can conflict with the declaration?

In my experience, the second law is not saying that a rule can conflict with the declaration.

The short of it is that if this bill becomes a law, then the new law will, in part, override the declaration. This is pursuant to the statutory hierarchy of document authority.

If one really wants to process this, then I think one needs to consider 4205 (a) and 4205 (d). By your reasoning, I think you would have to say the two conflict. Yet the courts and legislatures say otherwise.

Furthermore if the two conflict, then by your reasoning a board creating a rule complying with a statute can never override a covenant that violates the statute.

TerriS6 (California)
Posts: 3,284

Posted:

I should have added that the proposed text makes it optional/discretionary for the board to adopt a rule allowing electronic ballots.

TerriS6 (California)
Posts: 3,284

Posted:

Putting it another way, can a law permitting adoption of rules inconsistent with the declaration override a law that requires adopted rules be consistent with the declaration?

LetA (Nevada)
Posts: 2,679

Posted:

Usually new laws quash any existing verbiage in your governing documents.

ElleN (Idaho)
Posts: 4,420

Posted:

Does Civil Code 4205(d) trump Civil Code 4205(a)?

Answer this and I think you maybe will start to understand.

TerriS6 (California)
Posts: 3,284

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By LetA on 06/12/2024 4:59 PM
Usually new laws quash any existing verbiage in your governing documents.

That’s not the question. The question is does the new law that contradicts the existing law take precedence?

TerriS6 (California)
Posts: 3,284

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By ElleN on 06/12/2024 5:18 PM
Does Civil Code 4205(d) trump Civil Code 4205(a)?

Answer this and I think you maybe will start to understand.

The question does not relate to d; it only relates to a. It relates to a conflict between 2 laws.

ElleN (Idaho)
Posts: 4,420

Posted:

Horse. Water.

GregoryT1
Posts: 315

Posted:

Hi,

Is this the new proposal?

https://findhoalaw.com/ab-2159-electronic_secret_ballot/

TerriS6 (California)
Posts: 3,284

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By GregoryT1 on 06/13/2024 5:30 AM
Hi,

Is this the new proposal?

https://findhoalaw.com/ab-2159-electronic_secret_ballot/

That is the one. There are so many problems with it. The whole of Article 4 (Cl Code sections 5100-5145) is full of procedures for secret written ballots using 2 envelopes. 4350(c) makes unenforceable any operating rule that is in conflict with the declaration. So which law would take precedence if AB2159 passes? Especially since 4350(c) is not proposed to be modified. If they removed that condition, imagine the melee if ooerating rules no longer had to be consistent with the declaration.

GregoryT1
Posts: 315

Posted:

hi Terri,

I like Shelia's idea of getting involved with the proposal to make it better. It is in flux with a lot of moving parts.

Is this part correct "This bill would amend Civil Code Section 5115 and add Civil Code Section 5116 to authorize an association to conduct an election by electronic secret ballot unless the association’s governing documents provide otherwise."

Is the intent to allow electronic secret ballot but at the same time allow associations existing physical secret ballot process to continue if defined? This might allow new condos to have electronic verbiage in their docs and existing ones to continue operating as is. I am just writing "out loud" I understand what you are saying with the ripple effects throughout the hierarchy of the condo docs.

What are your thoughts?

TerriS6 (California)
Posts: 3,284

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By GregoryT1 on 06/13/2024 6:07 AM
hi Terri,

I like Shelia's idea of getting involved with the proposal to make it better. It is in flux with a lot of moving parts.

Is this part correct "This bill would amend Civil Code Section 5115 and add Civil Code Section 5116 to authorize an association to conduct an election by electronic secret ballot unless the association’s governing documents provide otherwise."

Is the intent to allow electronic secret ballot but at the same time allow associations existing physical secret ballot process to continue if defined? This might allow new condos to have electronic verbiage in their docs and existing ones to continue operating as is. I am just writing "out loud" I understand what you are saying with the ripple effects throughout the hierarchy of the condo docs.

What are your thoughts?

Thanks, already involved with legislature.
The link is not the most recent amendment which was done 6.10.24. 5116. has been deleted.
Again, I am well aware of the hierarchy but the issue is 2 laws that would be opposite. So which one takes precedence?

ElleN (Idaho)
Posts: 4,420

Posted:

Suppose a new statute section genuinely conflicts with an older statute section. In this case the rules of statutory construction say that the newer section controls. This is well-covered on the net. See for example: https://californiaglobe.com/fr/when-a-new-law-conflicts-with-an-existing-law/

Note: If the aforementioned bill does become a law, I am not saying an actual conflict would exist, requiring a court to, say, apply a statutory construction rule. But this is a longer discussion.

GregoryT1
Posts: 315

Posted:

hi Teri.

So is this the puzzle

"Putting it another way, can a law permitting adoption of rules inconsistent with the declaration override a law that requires adopted rules be consistent with the declaration?"

Then the short answer (my guess) is no.

Rules and declaration cannot be in conflict. The law if passed was open to what the condo docs is currently stated. So if you want the electronic pathway and it might not be mandatory then the rules and the declarant needs to change and be cohesive. All of this is me muttering and I am sure you will get different and better qualified opinions.

ElleN (Idaho)
Posts: 4,420

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By GregoryT1 on 06/13/2024 8:17 AM
Rules and declaration cannot be in conflict.

You mean they can be in conflict but the question is what the law says about resolving such conflicts.

Whole courses on the "conflict of laws" are offered in law schools. A buzillion academic papers speak to the subject "conflict of laws." Courts use case law and statutes all the time to resolve conflicts of laws.

TerriS6 (California)
Posts: 3,284

Posted:

Another factor is that 4350 requiring operating rules to be in harmony with the declaration applies to all operating rules whereas the conflicting proposed law allowing conflict between an operating rule and the decla

TerriS6 (California)
Posts: 3,284

Posted:

Oops...declaration only applies to elections.

TerriS6 (California)
Posts: 3,284

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By ElleN on 06/13/2024 8:36 AM

Posted By GregoryT1 on 06/13/2024 8:17 AM
Rules and declaration cannot be in conflict.

The law says the rule would be unenforceable. 4350.(c)

TerriS6 (California)
Posts: 3,284

Posted:

I would think unless they modify 4350c, the new proposed rule would be unenforceable.

ElleN (Idaho)
Posts: 4,420

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By TerriS6 on 06/12/2024 9:01 AM
Existing law at Civil Code 4350.(c) says an operating rule to be valid and enforceable must not conflict with governing law AND the declaration

4350(c):
An operating rule is valid and enforceable only if all of the following requirements are satisfied:
.
.
.
(c) The rule is not in conflict with governing law and the declaration, articles of incorporation or association, or bylaws of the association.

Suppose a rule is compliant with the Declaration but not compliant with state statute. Doesn't this violate 4350(c)? Of course it does.

When a declaration section conflicts with a statute section, section 4350(c) seems to put HOAs in the position of not being able to create rules that are compliant with both the declaration and the statute. Huh. Are legislators dumb? No. According to the courts and legislature, the various statute sections (including 4350(c)) are saying that a board-created rule may not contradict the declaration //unless// (1) a statute overrides the declaration; and (2) the rule is consistent with the statute.

Declaration sections become obsolete all the time due to the enactment of new statutes. Or does the OP disagree that this is so?

ElleN (Idaho)
Posts: 4,420

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By TerriS6 on 06/13/2024 8:44 AM

Posted By ElleN on 06/13/2024 8:36 AM

Posted By GregoryT1 on 06/13/2024 8:17 AM
Rules and declaration cannot be in conflict.

The law says the rule would be unenforceable. 4350.(c)

Section 4350 (c), taken by itself, says the rule is not enforceable. But if AB-2159 becomes law, then "the law" (meaning the entirety of the law) says the rule is enforceable, because of (1) conflict of laws principles that say the more recent statute section trumps the older law; (2) the wording of AB-2159 (if enacted) about "notwithstanding an association's governing documents"; and/or (3) Civ Code 4205.

Interested readers may also wish to review:

https://www.davis-stirling.com/HOME/R/Rules-of-CC-R-Interpretation

TerriS6 (California)
Posts: 3,284

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By ElleN on 06/13/2024 8:59 AM

Posted By TerriS6 on 06/12/2024 9:01 AM
Existing law at Civil Code 4350.(c) says an operating rule to be valid and enforceable must not conflict with governing law AND the declaration

For all I know, the proposed statute could be changed again at the next legislative committee meeting. But if it remains and is passed. Asking the question again, suppose a rule is not compliant with the declaration, is not compliant with the statute that applies to all operating rules but is compliant with statute that states the opposite of the first statute?

TerriS6 (California)
Posts: 3,284

Posted:

Rules and declaration cannot be in conflict.

The law says the rule would be unenforceable. 4350.(c)

Thanks but These references do not address the question.

TerriS6 (California)
Posts: 3,284

Posted:

Above is ElleN's post except for last line.

ElleN (Idaho)
Posts: 4,420

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By TerriS6 on 06/13/2024 9:27 AM

These references do not address the question.

As long as one believes that 4350(c) is all a court would consider in answering the question, sure.

But this belief is flatly false.

ElleN (Idaho)
Posts: 4,420

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By TerriS6 on 06/13/2024 9:18 AM

For all I know, the proposed statute could be changed again at the next legislative committee meeting. But if it remains and is passed. Asking the question again, suppose a rule is not compliant with the declaration, is not compliant with the statute that applies to all operating rules but is compliant with statute that states the opposite of the first statute?

For one thing, see the citation above that I gave stating how conflicts between an old statute section and new statute section are resolved.

TerriS6 (California)
Posts: 3,284

Posted:

The statutes are in separate Articles. 4350 applies to all operating rules. The proposed statute applies to elections. If a court ruled that 4350c didn't apply to elections, there would be no basis for requiring it to apply to other Articles in the Davis-Stirling Act. Then no operating rule would have to comply with the law and the declaration. That would be chaos.

TerriS6 (California)
Posts: 3,284

Posted:

Here’s another angle. Since the proposed law doesn’t require compliance with 4350.(c), that means it’s not enforceable which means no election using electronic ballots could be challenged!

ElleN (Idaho)
Posts: 4,420

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By TerriS6 on 06/13/2024 12:39 PM
The statutes are in separate Articles. 4350 applies to all operating rules. The proposed statute applies to elections. If a court ruled that 4350c didn't apply to elections,

No. Courts rule only on what is in front of them. If AB2159 becomes law, then the section of AB2159 in question is quite narrow:

(i) Notwithstanding an association’s governing documents, the association may adopt operating rules that allow an association to conduct an election by electronic secret ballot, except for an election regarding regular or special assessments, as provided for in Chapter 8 (commencing with Section 5600).

If an owner sued the board, claiming it violated 4350(c) when it enacted rules allowing the HOA to conduct an election by electronic secret ballot (while the Declaration says, for example, no electronic voting), I see the court ruling for the HOA, but only as this pertains to these new operating rules allowing the HOA to conduct an election by secret ballot. (I am assuming these operating rules have no other problems other than what the owner's lawsuit claims.)

Alternatively and more likely IMO, the court would rule that there is no conflict between 4350(c) and the new statute section. The reason no conflict exists is because of this phrase in the new statute section: "notwithstanding an association's governing documents."

You want this site https://www.davis-stirling.com/HOME/R/Rules-of-CC-R-Interpretation to be irrelevant, and insist it does not give any insight on your question, but you are mistaken.

AFAIC the chaos occurs when an owner requires a court to look only at 4350(c) when considering whether a violation of the D-S statute occurs. But this is not how either the courts or the law work.

The chaos also occurs when an owner believes that a statute section does not prevail when the statute section conflicts with a declaration section. Fact: When a statute section conflicts with a declaration section, the law says it is though the declaration section does not exist insofar as the subject matter of the statute section (that conflicts) is concerned.

ElleN (Idaho)
Posts: 4,420

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By TerriS6 on 06/13/2024 3:11 PM
Here’s another angle. Since the proposed law doesn’t require compliance with 4350.(c), that means it’s not enforceable which means no election using electronic ballots could be challenged!

No. Courts do not throw out the baby (meaning 4350(c)) with the bathwater. Section 4350(c) disappears only to the extent 4350(c) prevents the creation of election operating rules allowing an election with electronic secret ballots.

TerriS6 (California)
Posts: 3,284

Posted:

The new law would be unenforceable so it wouldn't even go to court.
The proposed legislation also gives a board the discretion to hire or not hire an inspector of elections when existing law and existing rules require an inspector of elections.
A poorly written bill that, if passed, will cause many problems.

ElleN (Idaho)
Posts: 4,420

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By TerriS6 on 06/14/2024 6:59 AM
The new law would be unenforceable so it wouldn't even go to court.

No. If the bill becomes a law, then when a HOA applies the law, and an owner believes the HOA did so incorrectly, of course the owner could take this to court to see if the court would order an operating rule to be thrown out.

A new statute section would not be "unenforceable" (as you put it). It could be ruled unconstitutional, but I do not see this happening here. Alternatively the court could find that the statute conflicts with another statute and use the rules of statutory construction and conflict of laws principles to decide how to interpret the new statute section.

Quote:

Posted By TerriS6 on 06/14/2024 6:59 AM
The proposed legislation also gives a board the discretion to hire or not hire an inspector of elections when existing law and existing rules require an inspector of elections.

I do not see this in AB2159.

Newbies: TerriS6 has a history of repeatedly claiming such-and-such statute section pertaining to board communications is not enforceable, when the statute section is enforceable (said the courts recently), or such-and-such from the California constitution (pertaining to free speech rights) means xyz for HOAs, when it never has. The mission appears to be to confuse directors who come here and persuade them to do what she wants rather than what the law says, for these particular statute and constitution sections. On the aforementioned issues, and on today's issue, she is deliberately posting fake news AFAIC.

TerriS6 (California)
Posts: 3,284

Posted:

Newbies and oldies have undoubtedly noticed that conversations are mostly peaceable until ElleN enters the room.

ElleN (Idaho)
Posts: 4,420

Posted:

Don't want to be called out? Do not post blatant falsehoods.

At a bare minimum, you should qualify your "fake news" assertions of "fact" with the phrase "I believe..."

TerriS6 (California)
Posts: 3,284

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By TerriS6 on 06/14/2024 6:59 AM
The new law would be unenforceable so it wouldn't even go to court.
The proposed legislation also gives a board the discretion to hire or not hire an inspector of elections when existing law and existing rules require an inspector of elections.
A poorly written bill that, if passed, will cause many problems.

Proposed language makes it optional to hire an inspector of elections for electronic voting:

"Notwithstanding an associations governing documents, the association may adopt an election operating rule that allows an association to utilize an inspector or inspectors of elections, as specified in Section 5110, to conduct an election by electronic secret ballot, except for an election regarding regular or special assessments, as provided for in Chapter 8 (commencing with Section 5600)."

TerriS6 (California)
Posts: 3,284

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By ElleN on 06/13/2024 9:17 AM

Posted By TerriS6 on 06/13/2024 8:44 AM

Posted By ElleN on 06/13/2024 8:36 AM

Posted By GregoryT1 on 06/13/2024 8:17 AM
Rules and declaration cannot be in conflict.

The law says the rule would be unenforceable. 4350.(c)

False statement that "more recent statute section trumps the older law." Totally false. Much more complicated than that.

ElleN (Idaho)
Posts: 4,420

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By TerriS6 on 06/14/2024 8:59 AM

Proposed language makes it optional to hire an inspector of elections for electronic voting:

"Notwithstanding an associations governing documents, the association may adopt an election operating rule that allows an association to utilize an inspector or inspectors of elections, as specified in Section 5110, to conduct an election by electronic secret ballot, except for an election regarding regular or special assessments, as provided for in Chapter 8 (commencing with Section 5600)."

You are misreading the proposed statute section. The proposed statute section is about a rule the Board has a right to adopt. If the Board does not adopt such a rule, Civ Code 5110 still requires an inspector of election. If the Board does adopt such a rule, then per the above, the rule requires an inspector of election. The rule would be simply another HOA rule that implements what the D-S statute requires.

Note: People trying to look up AB2159 need to be careful about which version they are reading. Right now I am using this: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240AB2159

ElleN (Idaho)
Posts: 4,420

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By TerriS6 on 06/14/2024 10:09 AM

False statement that "more recent statute section trumps the older law." Totally false. Much more complicated than that.

You do not understand what "trumps" means. Nor do you understand when the courts see a bona fide conflict of statute sections.

ElleN (Idaho)
Posts: 4,420

Posted:

The California State Assembly is the "lower house" of the California legislature. The "upper house" is the California State Senate.

On May 20, 2024, the Assembly (the lower house) passed AB 2159 73 to 0. (Seven Representatives of the 80-member Assembly did not vote.)

The bill was sent to the State Senate the following day for senate committee yada consideration.

TerriS6 (California)
Posts: 3,284

Posted:

The bill went to the assembly first because the author is an assemblyman not a senator.

TerriS6 (California)
Posts: 3,284

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By TerriS6 on 06/12/2024 2:46 PM
Putting it another way, can a law permitting adoption of rules inconsistent with the declaration override a law that requires adopted rules be consistent with the declaration?

Adopting an operating rule allowing electronic voting is NOT required by law but adopting an operating rule not in conflict with the declaration IS required by law. So I'm going with the conclusion that 4350. takes precedence over the proposed new language.

ElleN (Idaho)
Posts: 4,420

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By TerriS6 on 06/15/2024 12:07 PM

Adopting an operating rule allowing electronic voting is NOT required by law

But the new law would give boards the lawful right to adopt operating rules that allow an association to conduct an election by electronic secret ballot.

Quote:

Posted By TerriS6 on 06/15/2024 12:07 PM
but adopting an operating rule not in conflict with the declaration IS required by law. So I'm going with the conclusion that 4350. takes precedence over the proposed new language.

If the bill becomes a law, California HOAs will have two statute sections here. Arguendo, let's assume the two statute sections genuinely conflict in the eyes of courts. (I am not 100% sure they do genuinely conflict, but let's say they do.) What do courts do in a situation like this? After all, for both sections, the will of the legislature is supposed to be respected.

Answer: See my posts above.

I happen to think this conflict (rule created comporting with a new state statute section, but violating the Declaration) comes up a lot in general.

TerriS6, for like the fifth time, I know you disagree.

I look forward to seeing what the Senate does with this.

ElleN (Idaho)
Posts: 4,420

Posted:

References that speak about a newer statute section prevailing when it is irreconcilably in conflict with an older statute section:

https://app.leg.wa.gov/committeeschedules/Home/Document/41619

https://legisource.net/2016/02/19/statutory-construction-severing-statutes-and-resolving-conflicts/

https://ethics.ky.gov/Advisory%20Opinions/AO%2017-02-%20Gift%20Exception%202017-2.pdf

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/04-881P.ZC

https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=4337&cuclrev
("Statutory Interpretation - In the Classroom and In the Courtroom," Posner)

https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=12566&cjournal_articles
("The Law of Interpretation," William Baude, Stephen E. Sachs)

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-881.ZC.html

https://law.justia.com/codes/new-mexico/2021/chapter-12/article-2a/section-12-2a-10/

https://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/LI/consCheck.cfm?txtType=HTM&ttl=01&div=0&chpt=19

https://casetext.com/case/king-v-sununu

https://attorneygeneral.nd.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/72-272.pdf

ElleN (Idaho)
Posts: 4,420

Posted:

California appeals courts and the California Supreme Court have noted the rule for resolving irreconcilable conflicts between a newer statute section and an older statute section many times. For example, from the California Supreme Court in 2018:

The rules for construing irreconcilable statutes are well established. ( State Dept. of Public Health , supra , 60 Cal.4th at p. 960, 184 Cal.Rptr.3d 60, 342 P.3d 1217.) "If conflicting statutes cannot be reconciled, later enactments supersede earlier ones [citation], and more specific provisions take precedence over more general ones [citation]." ( Collection Bureau of San Jose v. Rumsey (2000) 24 Cal.4th 301, 310, 99 Cal.Rptr.2d 792, 6 P.3d 713 ; see § 1859; City of Petaluma v. Pac. Tel. & Tel. Co. (1955) 44 Cal.2d 284, 288, 282 P.2d 43.)

See https://casetext.com/case/lopez-v-sony-elecs-inc-3 (2018)

From a California Appeals Court in 2017:

As well, in the event two statutes conflict and cannot be reconciled, later enactments supersede earlier ones. ( Cross v. Superior Court (2017) 11 Cal.App.5th 305, 322-323, 217 Cal.Rptr.3d 569 ; Collection Bureau of San Jose v. Rumsey, supra , 24 Cal.4th at p. 311, 99 Cal.Rptr.2d 792, 6 P.3d 713.)

See https://casetext.com/case/yeh-v-li-cheng-tai

More examples appear when one googles as follows:

"earlier" "later" "statute" "conflict" site:https://law.justia.com/cases/california/

KerryL1 (California)
Posts: 14,550

Posted:

I did read through this twice. Before I think about this topic, I wonder why Terri and Elle, too, I think, keep mentioning the declaration (CC&Rs, covenants)? There's nothing about voting methods in ours?? Can you cite yours, Terri?

Since, in fact the stricter, burdensome CAlif. HOA Election requirements were expanded eff. 1/1/20, these "new" election imo, overrule any voting methods in the bylaws..

The HOA attorneys at the sizable and well-respected firm with whom our HOA has a retainer, authored this passage to our then-revised Election Rules :

"These Election Rules intend to fully comply with California law ....effective January 1, 2020. Where these Election Rules are in conflict with the Bylaws or other Association governing documents, the provisions herein will almost certainly supersede any other governing document terms to the contrary."

I was very surprised by the strong wording!

What do your 2020 HOA Election Rules revision say, Terri?

TerriS6 (California)
Posts: 3,284

Posted:

Declaration "Election. At each annual meeting, the Owners shall elect by secret written ballot Board members for the forthcoming year."

Didn't have election rules until 2022. Currently the rules require the double envelope system.

🎯 You've read this entire discussion

Join the conversation with 50,000 HOA & Condo Leaders:

✓ Ask follow-up questions
✓ Share your experience
✓ Get expert advice
✓ Access 350,000 discussions

Create Free Account →

⚡ Takes 30 seconds

Already a member? Log in here