Blog

New Bills Introduced – Manager Licensing and Landlord/Tenant Issues

Two bills have been introduced since I last blogged about the Colorado Legislative Session: one concerning community associations, and more specifically, manager licensing (HB 1175) and the second regarding landlord/tenant issues (SB 120). First, the Colorado General Assembly sets specific dates that a particular agency, 

Excuses, Excuses, Excuses!

If you’ve been in the business long enough (and long enough is a week), you’ve heard plenty of excuses!  Association members who pay their assessments late or not at all come up with some very interesting excuses.  Here are a few of the most common 

Introducing What Would be the Rental Application Fairness Act

HB18-1127, also known as the Rental Application Fairness Act (creating C.R.S. § 38-12-801 et seq), was introduced in the house on January 19, 2018.  If passed, the bill would do three things:

  1. Limit the application fee that a landlord may charge an applicant to the actual costs for a personal reference check or for obtaining a consumer credit or tenant screening report;
  2. Require a landlord to provide each prospective tenant with written notice of the landlord’s tenant selection criteria and the grounds upon which a rental application may be denied before accepting an application or collecting an application fee; and
  3. Require a landlord to provide a prospective tenant with an adverse action notice if the landlord takes adverse action on a prospective tenant after reviewing the rental application

In this blog, we’ll address each section of the bill and discuss in a bit more detail.

SECTION 1

The first portion of the bill would, as stated above, prohibit a landlord from charging an application fee unless the fee is used to cover the landlord’s costs in processing the rental application.  The costs may be based on the actual amount the landlord incurs in processing the rental application OR the average amount that the landlord charges each prospective tenant based on the average costs incurred in processing rental applications.

Not only would the bill provide as stated above, but the landlord would also have to provide any person who has paid the application fee with either 1) a disclosure of the anticipated expenses for which the fee will be used; or 2) a receipt that itemizes the actual expenses incurred.  If the landlord is charging a fee based on the average cost of processing the application, then the landlord must include information in the disclosure about how the average rental application fee is determined.

Additionally, the bill would not allow a landlord to charge one prospective tenant a fee that is different from the fee charged to another prospective tenant who applies to rent either the same unit or any other unit offered by the landlord at the same time.

SECTION 2

In its second portion, the bill would require that prior to accepting a rental application or collecting an application fee, the landlord must give the prospective tenant written notice of the tenant selection criteria and the grounds on which a rental application may be denied.  The bill provides the following list of grounds for denial which must be included in the notice (if the landlord will deny a prospective tenant’s application based on these criteria):

  • The prospective tenant’s:
    • criminal history;
    • rental history;
      • If using this as criteria, the landlord cannot consider any history beyond five years immediately preceding the application date.
    • credit history; or
      • If using this as criteria, the landlord cannot consider any history beyond five years immediately preceding the application date.
    • current income
  • Failure to provide accurate or complete information in the rental application; or
  • Failure to pay the application fee in the amount specified in the notice.

SECTION 3

If the landlord takes adverse action (denies an application or requires additional conditions to be met), written notice must be provided to the prospective tenant which states the reasons for the denial and/or additional conditions.  The bill provides a sample format as follows:

ADVERSE ACTION NOTICE

(NAME OF PROSPECTIVE TENANT)
(ADDRESS OF PROSPECTIVE TENANT)

THIS NOTICE IS TO INFORM YOU THAT YOUR APPLICATION HAS BEEN:

_______  REJECTED

_______  APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS:

_______  RESIDENCY REQUIRES AN INCREASED DEPOSIT;

_______  RESIDENCY REQUIRES A QUALIFIED GUARANTOR;

_______  RESIDENCY REQUIRES LAST MONTH’S RENT;

_______  RESIDENCY REQUIRES AN INCREASED MONTHLY RENT OF $_______

_______  OTHER

ADVERSE ACTION ON YOUR APPLICATION WAS BASED ON THE FOLLOWING:

_______  INFORMATION CONTAINED IN A CONSUMER CREDIT REPORT

_______  THE CONSUMER CREDIT REPORT DID NOT CONTAIN SUFFICIENT INFORMATION

_______  INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM PREVIOUS RENTAL HISTORY OR REFERENCE

_______  INFORMATION RECEIVED IN A CRIMINAL RECORD

_______  INFORMATION RECEIVED IN A CIVIL RECORD

_______  INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM AN EMPLOYMENT VERIFICATION

(DATE)
(SIGNATURE OF LANDLORD

Additionally, the notice must be accompanied by an acknowledgment of receipt, to be signed by the prospective tenant.

What would be the penalty for violation of the Act?  Two times the amount of the rental application fee, plus court costs and reasonable attorney fees. 

While responsible landlords are already taking these steps to ensure that they are screening for responsible tenants, this bill would formalize those steps and require that landlords jump through a few more hoops to ensure compliance.  Is it really necessary?  What are your thoughts? Chime in with your comments – we’d love to hear from you!  We’ll be following the progress of this bill throughout the legislative session, so check back often for updates!

 

More Legislation Introduced!

A couple more bills that would affect developments, community associations, and landlords/tenants!  Let’s dive in! HB-1107 was introduced in the house on January 18, 2018.  The intent of the bill is to facilitate the installation of electric vehicle charging systems.  The bill would require builders to 

The 2018 Colorado General Assembly Regular Session is Off and Running!

The General Assembly got underway yesterday, January 10, 2018 and 130 bills have already been introduced. We will be keeping on top of issues that affect debt collection and community associations, so make sure to check back regularly for updates. HB-1057 was introduced in the 

What to Expect When You Are … Increasing Your Dues!

In the vain of the popular pregnancy book, What to Expect When You’re Expecting, this article will discuss what to expect to hear from members of your communities when you are increasing your dues.  Many association assessments will increase in the new year and it isn’t news that most homeowners want to hear.  But sometimes a fee increase is the best way to keep the association in good financial health – and, sometimes, increases are unavoidable.  The following are some of the reactions that homeowners typically have when they hear that their fees are about to increase, followed by the related rationales for an increase.

  • “I can’t afford the increase.”  When owners choose to live in an association, they must be willing to share the costs, as described in the governing documents to which they agreed at closing.  In most instances, assessments are increased in order to be able to continue providing the maintenance to the property that comes with time and to fund reserves for large projects that are expected in the community in the future.  Keep in mind that if the association does not maintain the property, real estate values can decline.
  • “I probably won’t be living here in 15 years when the streets need repaving.  Why should I have to pay now?”  According to the US Census Bureau, only 37 percent of Americans have lived in their homes for more than 10 years, with a median duration of 5.9 years. Senior citizens, as well as people living in condos or homes they consider “starter properties,” often ask why they have to fund the association’s future projects.  The problem with this “short-timer” logic is that these people are themselves benefiting from the use of the streets, pool, and other common assets paid for by members who lived there before.  Members living in community associations agree to abide by the covenants of the community in which they reside.  As such, there are certain benefits which come along with the obligations of paying dues.  Amenities such as recreation centers, pools, tennis courts, etc. are obvious, but snow removal and exterior maintenance of the property and buildings is often overlooked.  Homeowners pay for the incremental use of these items each year they live there with assessments (which sometimes must be increased), which will hopefully keep at bay the dreaded special assessments.
  • “Why don’t we just have a special assessment for a specific project?”  Suppose you’ve been told that your association’s reserve fund isn’t adequately funded due to non-payment of assessments by many members, or a long history of keeping assessments low.  The property is now in dire need of siding repair, but that is going to be expensive.  So, the board decides to levy a special assessment to the tune of $5,000 per owner!  It can be difficult to collect money when you suddenly have a large expense.  We live our lives on budgets and when a large expense arises, it can certain cause financial hardship to some owners.  It’s better to collect it gradually (through assessment increases), so the funds are there when you  need them.

These are just a few of the reactions you may hear from your owners this time of year when assessment increases are discussed.  If you have questions about increasing assessments, or just how to communicate with owners regarding the topic, please contact us at mail@yourcornerstoneteam.com or at 720.279.4351.

Cover Your Bases: Do you have email addresses for owners in your communities? You may want to use them when collecting!

A North Carolina Court of Appeals court recently held that a homeowner, Ms. Ackah, that lost her home to a foreclosure by her association, did not have notice of said proceeding.  The lower court had also found that the notice was not sufficient and had