Many of the HOA disputes we handle for our homeowner clients involve failing pipes and plumbing fixtures which result in damage to the homeowner’s unit. Plumbing failures are an unfortunate part of owning a unit subject to an association. Problems arise when the HOA Board decides that it will not cover damage to property resulting from water intrusion caused by a plumbing or pipe failure.
Typically, the CC&Rs will define “common area” and exclusive use common area” and an effective CC&Rs will be clear as to what plumbing fixtures will be the responsibility of the HOA. Disputes arise when an HOA Board takes the position that a particular plumbing fixture constitutes “exclusive use common area” so as to pass the responsibility and expense to the homeowner.
At least one Court of Appeal case in California has addressed this issue and somewhat cleared up the question. In Dover Village Assn. v. Jennison, (2010) 191 Cal. App. 4th 123, a failed plumbing fixture underneath a unit failed causing sewage to back up into the unit. The HOA sought the repair cost from the homeowner citing to the fact that the particular plumbing fixture that failed was exclusive use common area because that section of piping somehow only served that unit. After the trial judge ruled in favor of the homeowner, the HOA appealed.
On appeal, the Dover Village Court agreed with the trial court, affirmed the ruling and held that “interconnected sewer pipes cannot really be said to be the “fixtures” of any particular unit. A sewer system is a series of interconnected pipes which ultimately feed into one common line. Differentiating parts of that interconnected system is unreasonable. The portion of piping coming from one unit is no more affixed to that unit than it is to the sewer system and other pipes or piping within that system.” Id. at 129.
Thus, the argument that a pipe is somehow exclusively used by a particular unit will fail as a matter of law where that pipe is part of the piping system to be maintained by the HOA. The Dover Village Court also rejected the HOA Board’s argument that it was somehow entitled to deference under the law to decide whether the owner is responsible or not. That argument was rejected and the Court posited that the Davis-Stirling Act does not make the Board the ultimate judge of legal issues affecting the development.
If you are a homeowner subject to an HOA and have been financially damaged by your HOA or you find yourself in a dispute with your HOA, contact one of our HOA dispute attorneys today for a free consultation and case evaluation.