Jessica's Clothes Corner

In January of 2016, the law firm that represents the Amherst Place Condominium Association (the “Association”) informed the Association’s management firm of the possibility of charging a yearly assessment when renters rather than owners occupy homes within the Association Like other associations, the Amherst Association and its management firm had experienced additional costs as a result of renters occupying homes within the AssociationIn May of 2016, the Board of the Association met at a regularly scheduled and noticed meeting to discuss a proposal to charge a fee of $250/year to any home within the Association if the home were occupied by renters The proposal contemplated that the management firm would bill and collect the $fee on behalf of the Association and that the Association would pay the management firm an amount equivalent to 40% of the fee after the fee was actually collected The Board discussed the proposal in open session followed by an opportunity for Association members to ask questions or make comments Afterward, a motion was made, seconded and carried to adopt the fee proposal The Board noted its approval of the fee proposal in the minutes of the May Board meeting, which were approved in the course at its next regular meeting held in July of At that same July meeting, the Board reviewed the written opinion of the Association’s legal counsel (dated July 6, 2016) who confirmed that the fee proposal had been properly noticed and considered at the May board meeting and that the Board’s decision to adopt the fee proposal was exercised consistent with the Board’s responsibilities to the Association pursuant to California’s Business Judgment Rule When an Association member still raised concerns about the $fee at the July meeting, the Board asked the Association’s legal counsel to provide further input on the appropriateness of the fee proposal The Association’s legal counsel responded in writing on August 15, 2016, again confirming that the Board had acted properly on the fee proposal, that the matter had been properly noticed for consideration and that the fee was consistent with California law and the Association’s CC&RsThus, after discussing the $fee at two regularly scheduled board meetings and twice confirming with the Association’s legal counsel that the adoption of the $fee was lawful, the Association directed its management firm to implement the fee effective August of The management firm pursued billing and collection of the $fee for the next three months As fees were collected, the management firm deposited them in the Association’s account At the close of each month, the Association paid the management firm a management fee that included an amount equivalent to 40% of the $fees collected, as contemplated by the original proposal adopted by the Board in May of In August of 2016, [redacted] joined the Board Mr [redacted] is an offsite homeowner who rents his home He opposed the $feeIn November, Mr [redacted] attended his first Board meeting as a new board member and proposed that the Association cancel the $fee The Board adopted his proposal Thereafter, the Association directed the management firm to discontinue billing the $fee, which it didMr [redacted] now demands that Michael & Sons return the amounts that the Association paid to Michael & Sons implementing the $fee as directed by the Board While Mr [redacted] may have acted within his discretion to persuade the Board to discontinue the $fee, neither he nor the Board have the unilateral authority to retroactively reverse financial commitments and payments made to third parties, like Michael & Sons, who performed as directed by the BoardSimply put, the Board acted properly when it adopted the $fee Michael & Sons acted properly when it collected the $fee at the direction of the Board The Association acted properly when it paid Michael & Sons consistent with the terms of proposal adopted at the Board’s May meeting And Michael & Son acted properly in keeping the monies paid to it by the Association.Best Regards, [redacted] Michael and Sons

In January of 2016, the law firm that represents the Amherst Place Condominium Association (the “Association”) informed the Association’s management firm of the possibility of charging a yearly assessment when renters rather than owners occupy homes within the Association. Like other associations, the Amherst Association and its management firm had experienced additional costs as a result of renters occupying homes within the AssociationIn May of 2016, the Board of the Association met at a regularly scheduled and noticed meeting to discuss a proposal to charge a fee of $250/year to any home within the Association if the home were occupied by renters. The proposal contemplated that the management firm would bill and collect the $fee on behalf of the Association and that the Association would pay the management firm an amount equivalent to 40% of the fee after the fee was actually collected. The Board discussed the proposal in open session followed by an opportunity for Association members to ask questions or make comments. Afterward, a motion was made, seconded and carried to adopt the fee proposal. The Board noted its approval of the fee proposal in the minutes of the May Board meeting, which were approved in the course at its next regular meeting held in July of At that same July meeting, the Board reviewed the written opinion of the Association’s legal counsel (dated July 6, 2016) who confirmed that the fee proposal had been properly noticed and considered at the May board meeting and that the Board’s decision to adopt the fee proposal was exercised consistent with the Board’s responsibilities to the Association pursuant to California’s Business Judgment Rule. When an Association member still raised concerns about the $fee at the July meeting, the Board asked the Association’s legal counsel to provide further input on the appropriateness of the fee proposal. The Association’s legal counsel responded in writing on August 15, 2016, again confirming that the Board had acted properly on the fee proposal, that the matter had been properly noticed for consideration and that the fee was consistent with California law and the Association’s CC&RsThus, after discussing the $fee at two regularly scheduled board meetings and twice confirming with the Association’s legal counsel that the adoption of the $fee was lawful, the Association directed its management firm to implement the fee effective August of 2016. The management firm pursued billing and collection of the $fee for the next three months. As fees were collected, the management firm deposited them in the Association’s account. At the close of each month, the Association paid the management firm a management fee that included an amount equivalent to 40% of the $fees collected, as contemplated by the original proposal adopted by the Board in May of In August of 2016, *** *** joined the Board. Mr*** is an offsite homeowner who rents his home. He opposed the $feeIn November, Mr*** attended his first Board meeting as a new board member and proposed that the Association cancel the $fee. The Board adopted his proposal. Thereafter, the Association directed the management firm to discontinue billing the $fee, which it didMr*** now demands that Michael & Sons return the amounts that the Association paid to Michael & Sons implementing the $fee as directed by the Board. While Mr*** may have acted within his discretion to persuade the Board to discontinue the $fee, neither he nor the Board have the unilateral authority to retroactively reverse financial commitments and payments made to third parties, like Michael & Sons, who performed as directed by the BoardSimply put, the Board acted properly when it adopted the $fee. Michael & Sons acted properly when it collected the $fee at the direction of the Board. The Association acted properly when it paid Michael & Sons consistent with the terms of proposal adopted at the Board’s May meeting. And Michael & Son acted properly in keeping the monies paid to it by the Association.Best Regards, *** *** Michael and Sons