[TO BE SENT VIA CERTIFIED MAIL, RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED]
---
Date: [INSERT DATE]
SENT VIA CERTIFIED MAIL — RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
TO:
Board of Directors Uniappartment Homeowners Association c/o California HOA Solutions LLC Attn: Joshua Ochoa, General Manager [HOA Registered Address — obtain from CC&Rs or Secretary of State filing]
CC: California HOA Solutions LLC Joshua Ochoa, General Manager Phone: (818) 927-1001 Fax: (818) 337-2222
FROM: Jose Segura Owner, Unit 208 15516 Nordhoff St, #208 North Hills, CA 91364
---
---
Dear Members of the Board of Directors and California HOA Solutions LLC:
I am writing in my capacity as the owner of Unit 208 at the above address to formally demand that the Uniappartment Homeowners Association immediately fulfill its legal obligations to repair the common area roof and remediate the mold contamination that has resulted from the Association's prolonged failure to maintain the building exterior.
Since at least early 2025, water has been infiltrating my unit through the building's roof every time it rains. This chronic water intrusion has caused significant mold growth within Unit 208, creating a documented health hazard and rendering portions of the unit uninhabitable.
On April 27, 2025, I retained LA Testing, a certified laboratory (AIHA LAP, LLC-EMLAP Accredited #102814), to conduct professional air quality testing of my unit. The results, contained in EMSL Order #322508477, confirmed the presence of Aspergillus/Penicillium spores at 790 count/m³ — more than three times the outdoor baseline of 260 count/m³. The laboratory classified these results as positive for mold contamination, with Aspergillus/Penicillium comprising 82.3% of the total indoor spore count.
Aspergillus and Penicillium species are well-documented causes of respiratory illness, allergic reactions, and in immunocompromised individuals, serious invasive infections. Their presence at these elevated levels constitutes a clear and present danger to the health and safety of any occupant.
On May 1, 2025, Mold & Water Damage Specialist Inc. provided Remediation Estimate #337 in the amount of $1,862.30 for the necessary mold cleanup. Critically, the remediation company has stated unequivocally that the roof must be completely repaired before any mold remediation can begin, as the ongoing water intrusion would immediately recontaminate any remediated areas.
Additionally, the remediation company has identified that the HVAC closet insulation may be contaminated with mold and potentially contains asbestos-containing materials, requiring separate testing and possible abatement — significantly increasing the scope and cost of remediation.
On October 14, 2025, I submitted a formal maintenance request to Joshua Ochoa at California HOA Solutions LLC documenting the worsening ceiling leakage and mold growth and specifically identifying the condition as a health hazard. No meaningful action has been taken.
I am informed that the Association held a vote on a special assessment to fund roof repairs, which failed 20-9. Of the 29 units in the building, 9 — including mine — are directly affected by the leaking roof and resulting mold contamination. The 20 units that are not affected voted against the assessment.
As a direct result of the Association's failure to act, my tenant has vacated Unit 208. I am now paying mortgage, HOA assessments, and insurance on a property I cannot rent, cannot safely inhabit, and cannot remediate until the Association fulfills its obligation to repair the roof.
The Association's duty to repair the roof is not discretionary. It is mandatory under multiple sources of law:
A. The CC&Rs
The governing documents of this Association explicitly assign responsibility for the maintenance, repair, and replacement of the building exterior — including the roof — to the Association. This provision creates a binding contractual obligation that runs with the land and is enforceable by any owner.
B. California Civil Code §4775 (Davis-Stirling Act)
Section 4775(a)(1) provides that "the association is responsible for repairing, replacing, and maintaining the common area" unless the CC&Rs provide otherwise. The roof is a common area. The CC&Rs confirm, rather than alter, this default allocation. The Association's maintenance obligation is statutory and non-discretionary.
C. California Civil Code §5600
The Association has a duty to levy assessments "sufficient to perform its obligations under the governing documents and this act." The failure of a special assessment vote does not extinguish this obligation — it means the Board must find alternative funding mechanisms, including use of reserves, emergency assessments under Civil Code §5610, or obtaining financing under Civil Code §4775(b).
D. California Civil Code §5610(b) — Emergency Assessment Authority (as amended by SB 900)
Effective January 1, 2025, SB 900 expanded the Board's emergency assessment authority. The statute now authorizes emergency assessments without any member vote for "an extraordinary expense necessary to operate, repair, or maintain the common interest development... where a threat to personal health or safety or another hazardous condition or circumstance on the property is discovered." The SwedelsonGottlieb HOA Law Blog confirmed this expansion "may include airborne hazards such as mold and asbestos" (November 6, 2024).
Laboratory-confirmed Aspergillus/Penicillium mold contamination at three times baseline levels, in a building with potential asbestos-containing HVAC insulation, unquestionably constitutes both a "threat to personal health" and a "hazardous condition" under the amended statute. The Board can levy an emergency assessment of any amount, with no dollar cap and no member vote required. The only procedural requirement is 30-60 days' notice (§ 5615).
The Board's failure to exercise this emergency authority — specifically designed for circumstances like these — is itself compelling evidence of bad faith and breach of fiduciary duty.
E. Health & Safety Code §17920.3
Visible mold growth that endangers the life, limb, health, property, safety, or welfare of the occupants constitutes a "substandard" building condition under California law. Board members who allow such conditions to persist face potential misdemeanor criminal liability, punishable by up to one year in county jail and a fine of up to $1,000.
Members of the Board of Directors owe fiduciary duties to all owners in the Association — not merely to the majority. These duties include the duty of care, the duty of loyalty, and the duty to act in good faith. Under California Corporations Code §7231 (incorporated by Civil Code §5231), directors must act "in a manner such director believes to be in the best interests of the corporation" and "with such care, including reasonable inquiry, as an ordinarily prudent person in a like position would use under similar circumstances."
Permitting the majority of unaffected owners to vote against necessary repairs for the minority of affected owners, and then failing to exercise the Board's independent authority to address the crisis through emergency assessments, use of reserves, or financing, constitutes a breach of these fiduciary duties.
The California Supreme Court has recognized that an HOA bears "a duty similar to that of a landlord" regarding common areas, and that individual board members can be held personally liable for conduct that is "clearly unreasonable under the circumstances known to them." Frances T. v. Village Green Owners Assn. (1986) 42 Cal.3d 490. In Sands v. Walnut Gardens (2019) 35 Cal.App.5th 174, the Court of Appeal held an HOA liable for damages from failing to perform preventative maintenance on a roof and pipes, finding that the CC&R obligation to maintain common areas in "first class condition" was breached. In Ridley v. Rancho Palma Grande Homeowners Association (2025) 114 Cal.App.5th 788, the Sixth District affirmed a $1.8 million judgment — including $250,000 in punitive damages against the HOA and $25,000 against the board president personally — under materially similar circumstances: delayed water intrusion repair, mold growth, loss of habitability, and board inaction over 19 months. The court held that the business judgment rule does not protect boards that fail to conduct reasonable investigation or act in good faith, and that exculpatory clauses in CC&Rs are unenforceable against public policy in such cases.
As a direct and proximate result of the Association's failure to maintain the common area roof, I have suffered and continue to suffer the following damages:
1. Lost rental income — my tenant vacated due to the uninhabitable conditions, and I have lost $[AMOUNT] per month in rental income since [DATE] 2. Ongoing mortgage payments — I continue to pay $[AMOUNT] per month on a property I cannot use or rent 3. Mold remediation costs — estimated at $1,862.30 and increasing 4. Air quality testing costs — already incurred 5. Asbestos testing costs — $330 already paid; additional costs if positive 6. Diminished property value — mold history will materially reduce the resale value of my unit 7. Health effects — exposure to elevated mold spore levels 8. Emotional distress — the ongoing financial and health burden of living with this crisis 9. Additional costs — temporary mitigation measures, medical evaluation, and related expenses
Under the Davis-Stirling Act, the prevailing party in an action to enforce the governing documents is entitled to mandatory attorney's fees and costs (Civil Code §5975(c)). Should litigation become necessary, the Association's exposure will include not only the damages listed above but also the full cost of my legal representation.
I hereby demand that the Association take the following actions within thirty (30) days of the date of this letter:
1. Commence emergency roof repairs to permanently stop all water intrusion into Unit 208 and the other affected units, exercising the Board's emergency assessment authority under Civil Code §5610(a)(2) if necessary to fund the work.
2. Authorize and fund professional mold remediation of Unit 208 upon completion of roof repairs, including all necessary asbestos testing and abatement.
3. Reimburse me for all documented out-of-pocket costs incurred as a result of the Association's failure to maintain the roof, including testing fees, temporary mitigation costs, and medical expenses.
4. Provide a written plan and timeline for permanent roof replacement or repair, including the funding mechanism.
5. Provide copies of the Association's current master insurance policy declarations page, the most recent reserve study, and the minutes from the meeting at which the special assessment vote was taken.
Pursuant to California Civil Code §5930 of the Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act, this letter also constitutes a formal Request for Resolution of this dispute through Alternative Dispute Resolution. The Association has thirty (30) days to accept this request. If the Association rejects ADR or fails to respond within 30 days, I will consider the ADR requirement satisfied and will proceed with all available legal remedies.
If the Association fails to respond to this demand or take corrective action within 30 days, I intend to pursue the following without further notice:
1. File a complaint with the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health regarding mold contamination in an occupied residential building 2. Request a building inspection from the Los Angeles Department of Building and Safety for roof failure, water intrusion, and habitability violations 3. File a formal complaint with the California Department of Real Estate regarding the management company's handling of this matter 4. Commence legal proceedings in Los Angeles County Superior Court for breach of CC&Rs, breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, nuisance, and violations of the Health & Safety Code, seeking compensatory damages, injunctive relief ordering the Association to repair the roof, punitive damages, and mandatory attorney's fees under Civil Code §5975(c)
I do not wish to pursue litigation. I wish to have my roof repaired and my unit made habitable. I am hopeful that the Board will fulfill its legal obligations without the necessity of court intervention. However, I will not continue to absorb financial losses and health risks while the Association refuses to act.
This letter and all supporting documentation will be preserved as evidence in any future proceeding.
Respectfully,
_______________________________ Jose Segura Owner, Unit 208 15516 Nordhoff St, #208 North Hills, CA 91364 segura.jose5@yahoo.com
---
Enclosures: 1. Air Quality Test Results (EMSL Order #322508477, dated April 27, 2025) 2. Mold Remediation Estimate #337 (Mold & Water Damage Specialist Inc., dated May 1, 2025) 3. Maintenance Request to Joshua Ochoa (October 14, 2025) 4. Updated Remediation Estimate correspondence (February 9, 2026) 5. Photographs of mold damage and water intrusion
---
CC (via Certified Mail):