HIRING AN ATTORNEY CAN BE HAZARDOUS TO YOUR HEALTH

August 12, 2007
By Donie Vanitzian (View author info) Copyright Donie Vanitzian
Los Angeles, California - If California can place caps on spending and caps on fees of various types of businesses -- then it needs to put caps on lawyer fees. When attorneys make more money than brain surgeons, its time to say we've had enough.
CALIFORNIA'S "LEGAL" CLIMATE IS STORMY AS HELL!
The English dramatist, Christopher Marlowe (1564-1593), once said "Hell hath no limits, nor is circumscribed, in one self place; for where we are is Hell, and where Hell is, there must we ever be." Whether that brilliant quote was pre- or post-attorneys, we do not know. But, not to worry, there isn't an attorney in California that should be fearful their invoicing capabilities will be curtailed because attorneys have no Hell, they have in fact, a Safe Haven. That safe haven is within the California State Bar. Yes, a trade group with paying members. Yet it should surprise no one that the Hell is saved for us--the clients.
Without dressing the news up to be worse than it is, let it suffice to say it is nevertheless, extremely troubling -- especially for consumers -- and most especially to those victims of bad attorneys. Yet, it appears that the only entity on earth that doesn't realistically understand California's present legal climate is the State Bar. It is business as usual as the State Bar continues to harbor, protect, shield, cater to, and most important, "defend" its own. One thing is certain; the State Bar does not protect consumers who are clients of attorneys and who are victims of attorneys. [FN1]
The public is "raged" and their ire must not be underestimated. Many Californians are without employment or have taken pay cuts in the hope they can keep their jobs. Most worry about paying mortgages, utilities, medical bills and supporting their families. Frankly, California Legislators don't seem to give a damn about the common folk. Those Legislators have a salary and pension that you and I can only dream of and, they are on a road none of us are privileged enough to travel because we do not possess the proper type of vehicle and cannot afford the toll fees to be able to travel on that same road.
CALIFORNIA HAS BECOME A COMPLICATED STATE TO WORK, LIVE, SURVIVE
Most Californian's grew up with an unassuming belief that the law was there to protect them. Because those laws have not helped residential deed-restricted titleholders subject to homeowner associations across this state, those beliefs are "unreasonable." With the onset of homeowner associations, our lives are no longer as we once knew them to be. These groups of titleholders have all but given up on those expectations. No matter how much you paid for that view of the sea, or how many miles of unsoiled greenbelts you are free to jog upon, there is nothing enrapturing about a homeowner association -- this type of development is pure taint. The romantic dreams of owning ones own home and gaining freedom at an affordable price -- are gone. The BEST these titleholders can hope for is to locate an honest and above average attorney for an affordable price on the same day they need one.
Living and doing business in the state of California appears to have become complicated beyond all measure. California's laws are not only "thick" they are poorly written. Thanks to the California Law Revision (Revenge) Commission who have their dirty hands in just about any law that is repealed, rewritten, amended and twisted -- laws, some that have been on our books for decades and easily enforceable by laymen, have become plagued with crossovers and hidden meanings, rendering many of them useless and unenforceable by the very persons they were supposedly written to protect.
The REAL legal analysts that USED to become Legislator staff employees are no more. The NEW so-called legal analysts are usually (1) someone that the Legislator owes a favor to, or (2) some kid wet behind the ears whose mommy or daddy contributed the most bucks to the Senator or Assemblyperson's campaign and wants to pad his kid's resume. That "new" definition of "legal analyst" has denigrated every legislator's position in our government and the result is self-evident. The incompetence is unmitigated.
Those once-simple business transactions now fill volumes of statute-books containing thousands of pages of what many of us term "nonsense" but still sporting language so legal that everyday citizens have to hire an attorney to translate the statutes to them. It is no laughing matter especially when one considers that many of the attorneys we are FORCED to hire (a) don't understand a particular area of law or the statutes themselves but will represent you in spite of that minor detail, (b) may tell you its not their area of expertise but will take you as a client anyway, (c) either way, s/he doesn't have a clue man, but hey, at least they've got a Bar card! As one attorney told me a couple years ago, "For a retainer of $5,000, I can do some research for you."
Fast-forward: The attorneys that DID the research after receiving the $5,000 gave me the $5,000 result as "Inconclusive" and then proceeded to keep the retainer money. Putting the $5,000 price tag aside for a minute, understand what was REALLY lost in that transaction => A precious statute-of-limitations was ticking away in the background and dangerously close to blowing up any chance I might have had for recovery of money owed me by another person. The attorney who was taking his time doing the research obviously talked a good game, did nothing, but substantiated his billing invoice for $5,000 just in case someone turned him or her into the Bar. But, like the attorney told me later, "The Bar doesn't prosecute attorneys for an inconclusive research result."
To the readers of this article: would it make a difference if "I" had already performed the research, gave it to him and then hired the attorney to confirm my findings? Is that worth $5,000? Would you answer the question any differently if you took a research result from your prior attorney and gave it to the new $5,000 attorney and then got an answer that the research is inconclusive? Or the best answer yet: "I'm new to the case so I need to familiarize myself with the facts all over again--if I don't I'll be sued for malpractice." Oh sure. Like, I mean, when was the last time anyone heard an attorney say they were worried about being sued for malpractice? Here's my question: BY WHO? Has ANYONE ever tried to find an attorney that was willing to put their own law license on the line to SUE ANOTHER LAWYER -- A BROTHER OR SISTER LAWYER for malpractice? That's a rare breed indeed if in fact they exist. Before you believe any attorney that tells you they fear being sued for malpractice, do the research yourself. Go dig up statutes that OUTLINE EXACTLY WHAT MALPRACTICE IS -- IF IT EXISTS AT ALL. Good luck.
Hiring an attorney is tough enough, but finding one that YOU can trust and have faith in is even tougher. Sometimes, by the time you find out that the attorney you just hired is the wrong one for you, it is too late. It doesn't matter if the guy who referred you to that attorney trusted him with his life; it doesn't matter if your neighbor used that same attorney for twenty years and trusts him with her life; it doesn't matter how many awards and plaques that attorney has received or how many clients he has; it only matters if YOU trust him and for what REASONS you trust him.
LEGAL BLACKMAIL--TAKING CLIENTS HOSTAGE
There's a joke so old, who knows where it originated, it goes like this: Q: How can you tell when an attorney is lying? A. His lips are moving.
The price of blackmail has just been raised and continues to get raised some more. [FN2] You need an attorney but you can't afford one, hell you're barely making it on your meager salary as it is. Not long ago, an attorney could be hired without a retainer agreement and could also be hired by "transaction" if that was what the client needed. In those days, if you needed a letter to be written and a quote to write that letter you could get one, today it is nearly impossible to get a quote for a single letter. One lawyer told me that he was obligated to write a response -- I said no you are not obligated to write ANY response, I'm not hiring you for that, I just want ONE letter. Ten attorneys later, I could find no one to write ONE letter for me, even at $1,000 for one letter. EACH lawyer I met with wanted a MINIMUM of $5,000 retainer before writing ONE letter and said it would be malpractice if they did not reply if a correspondence was sent back because of my initial letter. That is so damn preposterous. That lawyer is worried about his malpractice to the extent he will land ME in hot water and FORCE me to bankrupt myself to pay for his malpractice insurance all because he wants to glob onto a perpetual retainer agreement payroll so he can keep me mired in letters and hopefully for him, litigation that never ends. HE -- the LAWYER does not decide to respond on my behalf => I <= DECIDE WHETHER THE LAWYER RESPONDS OR NOT ON MY BEHALF. That is what has happened to the Bar protecting their own members. The members run all over the paying public.
In days gone by, (1950 to about 1985) let's say an attorney would charge $200 to write a single letter -- that meant it was just that: $200 was $200. If the attorney had to respond to that letter after he wrote it for you, the client would receive a communication from the attorney explaining that further action is needed and what the cost of that proposed action might be. That's what would happen before he proceeded to respond. Not today!
Today, the attorneys elitist club adds their own measure of inflation to what they believe they are worth. In more than one case that I am aware of, the "$200 letter" of yesteryear has become the basis for obtaining retainers from $5,000 on up and up and up. In a conversation I had with an attorney at a cocktail party, he attempted to substantiate the thousands of dollars demanded for retainer agreements by saying, "look, once you get a paying customer, you have to keep them, the retainer agreement does that." At the same party, another attorney told me that he had huge student loans to pay back and billing clients was a way to accomplish that quickly so he could start showing a "profit."
ATTORNEY CHOICES FOR CALIFORNIA CONSUMERS ARE SPARSE TO NON-EXISTENT
Blame the State Bar for making all paying clients equivalent to walking bankbooks for anyone in the profession of law. That's a scary position to be in -- especially if you are dependent on an attorney.
By limiting the number and/or amount of attorneys that are able to practice law in the state of California consumer choices are extremely limited. The Bar controls how many attorneys can practice law in the state and by doing that, the bar be it inadvertently or intentionally, whichever the case may be, controls fees. The smaller the pool of attorneys to chose from, the higher the fees to hire an attorney become.
The lawyer's and his law firm's records are privileged. Billing is subjected and it is what the attorney tells you it is. Only the most egregious and blatant billing practices are "sometimes" exposed. The word "sometimes" is emphasized.
In one contingency case the client, an old friend of mine, said he didn't understand what "contingency" meant, all he, as the client knew, was what the attorney told him. He said the attorney said wouldn't be expecting any money from my friend until the end of the case. Never mind that the attorney was billing like there was no tomorrow, literally a runaway train. Never mind that the attorney took an out-of-the-country three-week vacation during my friend's intense litigation. Oh, don't worry, the attorney was sure to send copies of his invoices -- with his vacation postcards -- to the client -- not as a courtesy, but to cover his ass when the State Bar complaints rolled in. "See, I sent the client timely invoices all along." As for the accuracy of those attorney generated invoices, that's anybody's guess. It appears that the Bar's interest is merely in the "sending of the invoices" not the authenticity of them. Hidden somewhere in that contingency agreement that the client did not expect was a clause stating the client was responsible for the fees irrespective of the agreement being a so-called contingency. The client ended up paying the exorbitant fees, much of which was unsubstantiated because the attorney told him/her if the fees were not paid the attorney would sue and win.
ONLY IN CALIFORNIA AND IT ONLY TOOK 24 HOURS:
But perhaps this was the best one yet: Client hires a "washed up old geezer attorney" who advertises that he is a "seasoned" attorney who has argued Supreme Court and Appellate cases; so client gives him a $35,000 retainer deposit. Overnight the client learns that the sleazebag attorney he just handed his $35,000 check was by industry standards, "washed up" -- a "loser." Client learns sure he argued those cases -- but never won. In fact, the seasoned geezer had not won ANY in the last twenty years. Client drives to the other side of town to fire the geezer and get back his $35,000. In walks the sleazebag-geezer with a brand new rug on his head, just got his nails done (yuk) and sporting a brand new set of alligator shoes because he was too fat for the alligator boots. When told he was terminated and that the client was there to pick up his $35,000 check, (1) I've already begun working on your case so you won't get the full $35,000 back, (2) I don't have the check its in the bank, (3) I have to wait for the deposit to come through, another 30 days, and then it will take me another two weeks to cut you a check after I figure out what you owe me. I cannot repeat on paper what happened next--but client recovered every cent and criminal charges were not filed. Many other clients are not that lucky.
Another person tells me that she brought an Unlawful Detainer action against a tenant for harassment. It turns out that Lawyer One took retainer agreement money, and then didn't do anything. She filed a complaint with the State Bar, and at least she was able to get her retainer check back. That does not account for lost time and money expended, and lost potential income from her commercial property during and after the attorney's incompetence. The "tenant" along with the "problem," remains.
Enter Lawyer Two, who finally filed the Unlawful Detainer action. Lawyer Two, brilliant as he claimed to be, decided he knew best how to win this. Therefore, he put his entire client's eggs into one basket. Inside that basket was one police report consisting of a complaint that the tenant hit the landlord. Fast forward to "court time" and unfortunately it isn't Judge Judy where fairness is meted out with a swift bolt of lighting, this is instead, Judge California. The landlord's attorney did not mention anything from the foot-thick file documenting the tenant's ongoing and continued harassment against her. So the California Judge rendered his own special brand of California peace-and-love kinda justice, he rules, "I believe he hit you, but I don't think it was hard enough to justify me evicting him."
Now comes the lawyer's bill. It contains the name of only one of two tenants being evicted; it shows charges AGAIN of $300 for "witness appearance fees" for two police officers who did NOT appear. There were also charges for "services" on TWO days of trial, services for WHAT? Who knows? At the first day of trial, we spent sitting in the court without explanation to the client. By 4 pm the Judge said go home and we'll have the trial tomorrow.
The client keeps asking for a DETAILED invoice and doesn't get one. One of the problems in doing anything by phone with an attorney is that they deny, deny, deny.
The public is encouraged to keep filing complaints at the Bar even though it appears they protect their own.
Consumers are encouraged to file complaints against errant attorneys: http://www.calbar.ca.gov
Consumers are encouraged to contact the author with any management and manager complaints by contacting: http://www.certifymyass.com
~0~
[FN1] Author note: The terms "him" "his" "he" are used in this article as gender neutral. [FN2] Author note: This article does not include all the good things about many wonderful attorneys as that is in another article that is due to be published later on this year; look for the third part of this article to be published soon.

THE TEMPLE OF BLAME AND LEGALIZED FRAUD DRESSED UP AS AN "ELECTION" PART II

Donie Vanitzian
Marina del Rey, CA 90295
March 15, 2007

Mr. Brian Hebert
California Law Revision Commission
3200 Fifth Avenue
Sacramento, California, 95817

THE TEMPLE OF BLAME
AND
LEGALIZED FRAUD
DRESSED UP AS AN “ELECTION”
PART II


Dear Mr. Hebert,

The Temple of Blame and Legalized Fraud Dressed Up As An “Election, Part I” erroneously referenced Senate Bill 1029. It should have referenced Senate Bill 61. I apologize for that error.
Unfortunately, there are many more problems with this code section, but they will have to wait for another time. Until then, please add the following items to my letter dated March 1, 2007 requesting repeal of Civil Code §1363.03.

Disqualification and/or Selective Invalidation
of Owner Ballots
It has been reported to me that so-called “Inspectors of Elections” for whatever reason(s) are “disqualifying” ballots based on THEIR interpretation of the law.
With nothing more than the name “inspector,” such “inspectors” are unilaterally deciding whether owner ballots are “qualified” or “disqualified.”

Number of units owned by a single titleholder: The statute does not address the issue of a single titleholder owning more than one unit. The legislature could have easily eliminated problems related to this issue, but were derelict. Presently, if the association has not adopted any rule that restricts the number of ballots to be mailed in each separate envelope, those ballots that are legitimately voted and mailed in a single envelope should not be invalidated, yet that is precisely what is occurring.
Owners of multiple units have reported to me, that their associations and/or the “inspectors” chosen to oversee such voting procedures are selectively disqualifying titleholder ballots. In one case, the so-called “Inspector of Elections” (whatever THAT’S supposed to mean) disqualified two votes of three votes cast by a titleholder who owns three units in one common interest development. That titleholder was entitled to cast—and have counted—one ballot for each unit owned irrespective of the envelope they were mailed in. Instead, the “Inspector” disqualified and discarded (destroyed) two ballots “because the inner envelope contained three ballots.” In actuality, and only for sake of argument, for the invalidation to be legal, all three votes should have been disqualified.

(a) NO ballots should have been destroyed and,
(b) Nothing in Civil Code §1363.03 prevents, nor ipso facto disqualifies, or gives any inspector of said elections the authority to disqualify, a titleholder holding title to more than one property within the same common interest development, from voting all his/her ballots at one time and placing said ballots in one envelope.

In another case, a titleholder owning more than one unit, clearly wrote his name and address and signed it (as indicated in the association’s instructions) on the outer envelope, and clearly wrote that it contained three ballots. Even though the “Inspector” checked the outer envelope against the association’s homeowner list indicating the titleholder is entitled to cast three ballots, the “Inspector” invalidated two votes of the three.
In a case where a titleholder owning two units -- voted his two ballots -- mailed them in the same envelope provided, the “inspector” invalidated both votes because only one envelope was used.
Some “inspectors” are “discarding” the ballots and others are merely “invalidating” the ballots. Civil Code §1363.03 does not define these terms nor does it discuss this situation. The code fails to address the aforementioned problems. This should have been a no-brainer to the legislature and the legislator who was responsible for sponsoring this fiasco.

Long and Incomprehensible Instructions

I am witnessing longer and longer, and yes, even longer, instruction sheets or multiple instruction sheets, accompanying voting procedures distributed to titleholders. One of the many problems with such “instructions” and the rules adopted by associations pursuant to Civil Code §1357.100 is that they are drafted by boards AND consultants or advisors who think they know what they are doing. In the interim thousands of titleholders are being disenfranchised because an advisor thought it would be a “good idea to include” [insert that good idea] in the instructions.
Apparently, those responsible for circulating ballots and/or voting materials will take it upon themselves to insert their own wording, or a sentence, or a paragraph, or what they may call a “clarifying note” into instructions that were NOT part of the language adopted by the owners and/or the board of directors let alone Civil Code §1363.03.
There are many who now believe that the taint on homeowner association elections and fairness in general, is irreparable. The industry’s influence has so corrupted the process that many of us believe it is beyond salvage. When a board of directors announces “it has passed” -- all hope is deflated by those owner who know it “didn’t pass.”

Good Standing, Bad Standing, No Standing
Just Sit Down and Shut Up!

Irrespective of the titleholders’ being in good standing at their associations or not, “inspectors” are unilaterally making the “call” whether owner ballots are “qualified” or “disqualified.”
It apparently no longer matters that the titleholder has a property right, one that vested on purchase of their property. As associations will do anything to divest owners of their property rights, this bogus nonsense written into many association documents consisting of “you are not in good standing so you cannot vote” overrides all statutes.

Open to Anyone’s nterpretation

Perhaps one of the biggest flaws with Civil Code §1363.03 is that it is open to interpretation.
Ballots created and distributed by management companies and/or other third-party vendors and forwarded to me by boards of directors and owners are evidencing a frightening trend. Management companies and other so-called “professionals” are apparently taking it upon themselves to insert their verbiage (i.e, via poetic license) into ballots.
It is also disturbing to find that there is a basic breakdown in communicating meaningful “instructions” to owners. Simple questions, like this one addressed to me from a reader, “HOW do those of us who did not vote by ballot, cast a vote at the annual election by attendance?” One owner forwarded seventeen letters asking that same question to her board over two months time. At the time of this writing, the question was still unanswered.

Creating unilateral contingencies in the balloting process: Too many ballots are wrongfully inserting, then publishing, contingencies into the voting process where no such “contingency” exists in the law and no such contingency exists in the association’s governing documents, or the “rules” adopted by the board. One such ballot that was irresponsibly created by a management company states “you must first check with the person to make sure they want to run for the board.”[1] Such an admonition of “acceptance” is not a statutory requirement, thus that statement functions as an “admonition” which in turn results in the “addition” of a “contingency” into the voting procedure and invalidates the election, let alone the ballot.[2] Another management company took it upon themselves to write on the face of the ballot:

“Write-in candidates, ie, candidates written on the ballots after they are distributed by the Association and nominations from the floor, are discouraged as they do not afford such candidates the same opportunity as those candidates whose names are pre-printed on the ballot, and it complicates the election process at the time of the meeting.”

Aside from the vendor’s arrogance in believing they can simply write what they want, that hyperbole confuses voters and could arguably subject the association to liability. It invalidates the election because it functions as an “admonition” which in turn results in the “addition” of a “contingency” in the balloting process. [3] Incompetent “opinions” injected into the balloting process by third-party vendors contracted by the association NOT to practice law but to provide a “service” in exchange for remuneration invalidates the election process. This interference is costly to the association and subjects the owners to insufferable preaching by paid employees[4] who have nothing to do with protecting the owners’ assets.

Mailed ballot invalidated and superseded by yet another mailing; and another mailing after that
Another problem occurs when ballots that were already circulated, voted, returned to the inspector, and waiting to be counted -- yet just prior to counting those ballots -- all ballots are invalidated.
The statute does not address this problem. In several instances that I have recently been made aware of, the management company or board of directors refused to return the invalidated ballots and it is unclear if those ballots were discarded, and if they were discarded, how so? There are variations on this theme, too lengthy for discussion in this forum, but in need of clear and unequivocal direction by the legislature. If the advisor, management company, or other third-party vendor contracting with the association is the recipient of the returned ballots, those ballots (as it was relayed to me) those entities are keeping, or holding onto those “invalidated” ballots.

Adding candidates
This is another problem that is growing in intensity. In the event the first mailing of ballots was invalid, and a second ballot mailing is necessary to correct an error, I have received communications from dozens of owners showing that advisors, management companies, or other third-party vendors contracting with the association, have taken it upon themselves to add candidate names to a new or corrected-ballot without giving prior notice to all titleholders that there was an extension of time allotted (ie, “created” due to the initial balloting error) to nominate and/or include one’s name on the ballot. Situations like this disenfranchise all owners and those who would have added their name as a candidate had they known that the time had been extended to place a candidate’s name on the ballot. [5]

Envelopes[6]
Without elaborating further, I have received hundreds of complaints and examples regarding the “double envelope” process, the quality or lack there of, regarding said envelopes. The complaints range from mailing-related problems to ballot invalidations as they relate to the envelopes provided by the association or other third-party vendor entity.
In one ballot enclosure executed by a vendor management company employee purporting to some sort of Vice President, the instructions state, “Any unsigned outer envelope will not be counted as it cannot be validated.”
That fabricated statement is deceitful, it is not the law, and without a published “validation” policy, it unilaterally disenfranchises the titleholder.[7] The statute does not state that, nor does it allude to that type of unilateral disqualification, or invalidation. In my discussions with Senator Battin’s office I was told that is not a true statement, the ballot will NOT be invalidated.

Signatures, privacy, identity theft:
Too many ballots are being invalidated or disqualified based on the owner’s “signature.” There are no guidelines in the statute that detail how “signature invalidation” is to occur, and under what circumstances it should occur, if it should occur at all. Owners report that their ballots are being invalidated for no other reason than “someone” said their signature was “suspect.” Yet, the person or entity invalidating ballots using the excuse of “suspect signatures” had nothing to compare the owners’ signatures to.
For obvious reasons, NO TITLEHOLDER wants their signature to be housed at a management company office -- let alone there are no assurances of privacy from such companies. Stockpiling signatures at a third-party vendor’s office where there is, among other things, no control over employees, access to documents, safeguarding of property, are unacceptable.
Predictably, this will mean that each titleholder must notarize their ballot prior to mailing it in. Without notarized ballots, its anyone’s guess whose signature it is.

Incompetence and interference: Third-party vendors are likely costing associations more than they bargained for. For example, in one ballot enclosure executed by a management company executive it states:
“Return the double sealed ballot to the Inspector of Elections by xx/xx/07.”
That statement is false and cannot be complied with for these reasons:

(1) there is NO double sealed BALLOT. The ballot itself cannot be sealed; and
(2) on its face, the aforementioned statement gives ALL titleholders until MIDNIGHT on xx/xx/07 to return their ballots and/or to vote, thus contradicting the governing documents AND what was written in the other enclosures mailed with the ballot that stated the ballots are counted in the open at the annual meeting, and results are announced at that time.

Misrepresentations: Some third-party vendors, including management companies, advisors, consultants, and the like, have injected there own sayings onto the face of the ballots, and/or in accompanying materials that invalidate the election process. One such saying is as follows:

“A quorum of members must return ballots in order for the election to be valid.” [8]


That statement alone invalidates the entire election because:

(a) for a variety of reasons too length for this discussion, it creates a “contingency” for the owner’s “vote”;
(b) assuming arguendo that the statement is accurate, it fails to state the quorum “number” required for the election to be “valid”;
(c) it places an (additional) “instruction” on the document which should not be there without a vote and direction of the board;
(d) that statement (in this instance) “contradicted” other enclosures published by the management company vendor and/or board of directors that accompanied the ballot itself;
(e) it “assumes/presupposes” that the owner cannot or will not utilize a proxy or send a representative in to vote;
(f) the statement predicates a “valid election” on a quorum of returned ballots. This may not be the case in every association. This also does not account for attendance at the meeting for quorum purposes, it does not account for votes and nominations from the floor and in-person voting at the time of said election and/or annual meeting; (this assumes that the annual meeting is also THE meeting where the election of officers will occur), it misstates the facts;
(g) if the ballot does not state on its face, that “this ballot will be used to establish a quorum,” then that statement cannot be made.[9]

Let’s keep recounting until we get the result we want:
Some owners have reported influence from outside entities encouraging if not demanding that the boards recount ballots. Some have reported recounting ballots over three times. Each time the result narrows and by invalidating certain ballots, the slate, or existing board members can keep their seats. In each instance, the competition was eliminated. Coincidence? You decide.

Again, no matter how its sliced, Civil Code §1363.03, in its present form it is incomprehensible and nearly, if not wholly, impossible to comply with in toto.

Very truly yours,




D. Vanitzian
[1] Vanitzian, California Common Interest Developments-Homeowners Guide (Thomson/West 2007).
[2] Vanitzian, California Common Interest Developments-Homeowners Guide (Thomson/West 2007).
[3] Vanitzian, California Common Interest Developments-Homeowners Guide (Thomson/West 2007).
[4] Vanitzian, California Common Interest Developments-Homeowners Guide (Thomson/West 2007).
[5] Vanitzian, California Common Interest Developments-Homeowners Guide (Thomson/West 2007).
[6] Vanitzian, California Common Interest Developments-Homeowners Guide (Thomson/West 2007).
[7] Vanitzian, California Common Interest Developments-Homeowners Guide (Thomson/West 2007).
[8] Vanitzian, California Common Interest Developments-Homeowners Guide (Thomson/West 2007).
[9] Vanitzian, California Common Interest Developments-Homeowners Guide (Thomson/West 2007).