We need PRO/CON comments on this new clause.
The HOA recently added an indemnification clause for the ARC application.
In December 2022, the Board of Directors unanimously voted to add the indemnification language to the Architectural application. This is a change to the Association’s policy when making improvements to your property. The Board of Directors refused to send the policy change out to homeowners for input, as is required by law. A material change such as this should be presented to the HOA members for feedback, and input before the Board votes on a policy change. That is why the law exists – to prevent a rogue board. This indemnification language provides a path for the BOD to not be held accountable for their decisions and allows them to act arbitrarily and capriciously with no recourse If the Association were to be sued from a decision made by the Board of Directors, you the homeowner/applicant is now forced to defend the Association and pay for its legal fees and costs. Why would a homeowner want to make any capital improvements to their property based on the indemnification language and the selective decisions of the Board?
How did this come about? We learned that a nonmember, let’s call him Andrew, has been allowed to “attend” and participate in the monthly HOA Zoom meetings. This is against the Association CC&Rs. At the November 2022 Zoom meeting, Andrew suggested that the HOA include indemnification language in the architectural application. Ironically, Andrew just finished his remodel so he’s in the clear – this won’t have an impact on him.
The Board of Directors did exactly what Andrew suggested, so they are off the hook too from following their fiduciary duties. One asks themselves, if this was such a hot idea and in the best interests of members and the Association, why wasn’t the indemnification language suggested years ago by legal counsel for the Association? Easy answer. It is not in the best interests of the Association or members.
We do not know Andrew’s motivation, but the Voice learned Andrew faced an indemnification issue with the City of Laguna Niguel on his remodel. Andrew and the homeowner he lives with decided not to indemnify the City, so they modified their plans to avoid potential financial exposure. Instead of being happy, content or satisfied with their remodel, Andrew decided to leave a time bomb for the rest of the Beacon Hill members. Nice!!
The Voice would like members’ input as to their views on the pros and cons of having this policy and the process in which it was proposed and implemented.
Please contact the HOA if you think a more consistent policy should be observed and communicated to members.
Please also email us at Beaconhillvoice1@gmail.com so we can keep track of member concerns.
Seabreeze Management
Property Manager Cecilia de Heras
1211 Puerta Del Sol Suite 120
San Clemente CA 92673
800-232-7517
Cecilia de Heras cecilia.deheras@seabreezemgmt.com
If you would like to add any comments to this page or find something that is not accurate, please email us at Beaconhillvoice1@gmail.com
One member responded.
So the Board is so uncertain about the defensibility of their approvals that in November or December 2022, they added an indemnification clause to the Architectural application, without noticing membership, so they can absolve themselves of responsibility for their own arbitrary and capricious decisions? Then what’s the point of a member going through the motions of submitting a project for approval per Architectural guidelines? At the same time, the Board purchased an additional umbrella policy for $25,905.00, using membership dues to maintain HOA common area, to protect themselves from their actions. The November 2022 minutes fail to state the reason and purpose for purchasing a $15,000,000.00 umbrella policy.
Another member responded.
Why should a homeowner, who in good faith follows all the rules, submits a proper application with professional architectural plans…that the HOA in their judgement approves…have to indemnify the HOA for THEIR decision?