COURT APPROVAL OF CC&Rs

Most older CC&Rs have very high approval requirements (from 60% to 75%) that make it almost impossible to amend or restate the CC&Rs. The legislature recognized the problem and enacted Civil Code §1356 to alleviate the problem. (Corp. Code §7515 also permits a court to authorize corporate action if for any reason it is impractical or unduly difficult to obtain membership consent.)

Good Faith Effort. If the association made a good faith effort to obtain membership approval and the number of votes fell short of the requirements, the association may petition the court to reduce the percentage of votes necessary to amend the CC&Rs. Blue Lagoon v. Mitchell.

Petition Requirements. The petition must contain the following elements:

  1. Explain the reason for the amendment.
  2. Describe number of votes required to amend the CC&Rs.
  3. Describe the number of affirmative and negative votes actually received.
  4. Describe the effort to solicit approval of members in the manner provided in the CC&Rs.
  5. Include a copy of the governing documents, a complete text of the amendment, and the notice and solicitation materials used.

Time Frame. The petition is given priority by the courts. The process generally takes from 30 to 90 days to prepare and file the petition and have the matter heard.

Court Approval. The court may, but is not required to, grant the petition if it finds all of the following:

  1. The membership was given at least 15 days written notice of the court hearing.
  2. Balloting on the proposed amendment was conducted in accordance with the governing documents.
  3. A reasonably diligent effort was made to permit all eligible members to vote on the proposed amendment.
  4. More than 50% of the membership voted in favor of the amendment. Peak Investments v. South Peak HOA
  5. The amendment is reasonable.
  6. Granting the petition is not improper for any reason stated in subdivision (e) of the statute.

Reasonableness. The standard for reasonableness for CC&R amendments is that they not be arbitrary or capricious; that they be rationally related to the protection, preservation or proper operation of the property and the purposes of the association as set forth in its governing instruments; and that they be fair and nondiscriminatory. Fourth La Costa Condominium Owners Assn. v. Seith

Updated by ADAMS KESSLER 10/1/2008

 
Free Newsletter | Disclaimer | Contact Us

Davis-Stirling.com is a product of Adams Kessler PLC and is not sponsored by or
affiliated with any governmental agency. Copyright ©2003-2008 ADAMS KESSLER.