1 Response

1. 

   Dennis Legere

   April 16, 2025 at 6:24 am

   Log in to Reply

   William,

   The amendment would have prevented associations from using small claims court to generate liens on homeowners’ property. Small claims court precludes the use of attorneys for any claim, and associations can use representatives from their management company to file for the lien or seek a monetary judgment against a homeowner. While I fully agree that this approach saves money for the association, the homeowner is left with a significant disadvantage because the community management companies can claim anything they want, often without understanding of the law. They never identify their own mistakes that may have contributed to the delinquency. The Justice of the Peace appoints the Small Claims administrators and has no requirements for any legal training or license. So you have a situation with a complicit individual with no understanding of the law, filing a claim for money they claim is owed based on the CC&Rs to another individual with no knowledge of the law, adjudicating the issue. The homeowners often also do not understand the protections of the law that we have fought hard to protect. The problem is that the laws for liens on property in these communities override any provision in the governing documents and require certain conditions to be satisfied prior to any lien being applied. Without legal representation, the homeowner is denied the due process required prior to the application of a lien or monetary judgment.

   This Amendment would have eliminated this situation. Justice Court and the Justice of the Peace could still hear the case, but attorneys are allowed in Justice Court and at least the homeowner has the opportunity for legal representation to ensure the JOP is informed of the full extent of the laws over the community documents.

   All of this is moot the amendment was withdrawn at the request of the original bill sponsor, and never voted on.

   Dennis