Battram v Emerald Bay (1984). Association's assessment method can be changed with less than 100% approval of the membership. CC&Rs are to be interpreted to give effect to the main purpose of the contract and which will not result in an interpretation which would be extraordinary, harsh, unjust, inequitable or result in absurdity.

Beehan v Lido Isle (1977). Boards may use prudent business discretion in deciding whether or not to sue for a violation of the governing documents.

Braude v Automobile Club (1986). Nonprofits must have fair and reasonable election procedures so each member has a reasonable and fair opportunity to be nominated and elected to the board.

Cabrini Villas v Haghverdian (2003). A request for alternative dispute resolution may be served personally or by certified mail with a signed return receipt.

Chantiles v Lake Forest II (1995). A director's right to inspect records is not absolute. Boards must balance privacy interests against inspection rights.

Clark v Rancho Santa Fe (1989). Attractiveness of an improvement is a subjective determination for the board or architectural committee to make. Response to architectural application must conform with the CC&Rs and be in good faith. Refusal to approve plans must be a reasonable determination made in good faith.

Cutujian v Benedict Hills (1996). Four-year statute of limitations for enforcement of CC&Rs begins to run when a demand for performance is made. Where conduct which violates a duty owed to another also interferes with that party's free use and enjoyment of his property, nuisance liability arises.

Duffy v Superior Court (1992). Associations cannot sue a homeowner for complaining about a CC&R violation.

Cohen v Kite Hill (1983). Boards must ensure improvements are in accordance with CC&Rs. Members can sue for failure to enforce architectural standards.

Cohen v S&S Construction (1983). Developer who controls an association's board is liable for failure to enforce the CC&Rs and cannot protect himself by inserting exculpatory language in the CC&Rs.

Deane Gardenhome v Denktas (1993). Associations may waive architectural restrictions if they lead an owner to believe that an approval has been granted and the owner acts in reliance on the approval.

Dolan-King v Rancho Santa Fe (2000). Changes to owner's house and fence were inconsistent with architectural standards. Owner failed to meet burden of showing art jury's disapproval was unreasonable and arbitrary.

Ezer v Fuchsloch (1979). View blockage issue. Trees do not have an independent right to exist nor do they have standing to sue. Mandatory injunction issued to cut trees.

Foothills Townhome Assn v Christiansen (1998). Replenishment of an association's reserve funds is a valid basis for a special assessment. A lawsuit by an association to collect delinquent assessments does not qualify as a SLAPP lawsuit.

Frances T v Village Green (1986). Association breached its duties by failing to timely provide additional exterior lighting which resulted in rape and robbery of a member. Directors are fiduciaries. Association can be held to landlord standard of care as to common areas. Only a director who actually votes for the commission of a tort is personally liable.

Franklin v Marie Antoinette (1993). Exculpatory clause in CC&Rs relieving the association of its contractual liability to pay for water damage is valid.

Golden Gateway v Golden Gateway (1999). Distribution of fliers can be prohibited under certain circumstances.

Hannula v Hacienda Homes (1949). HOA must exercise authority to approve or disapprove an individual owner's construction or improvement plans in conformity with the CC&Rs, and in good faith. Primary object in construing restrictive covenants should be to effectuate the legitimate desires of the covenanting parties.

Ironwood Owners Assn v Solomon (1986). HOA seeking to enforce CC&Rs must first follow its own procedures, which must be fair and reasonable, and the decision must be made in good faith, reasonable, not arbitrary or capricious.

Kriegler v Eichler Homes (1969). Developers are strictly liable for construction defects in mass-produced residential housing.

Kovich v Paseo del Mar (1996)Association has a fiduciary duty to members but not to prospective buyers.

Laguna Royale v Darger (1981). Condominium owners as a group have the authority to reasonably regulate the use and alienation of condominiums (such as renter restrictions).

Lamden v La Jolla Shores (1999). Owner thought buildings should have been tented for termites instead of spot treatments. Courts should defer to boards that after reasonable investigation, in good faith and with regard for the association's best interests acts within the scope of its authority.

Liebler v Point Loma (1995). Association is allowed to exclude a nonresident owner from using the common area recreational facilities where there is a tenant residing in the unit. Due process standards. Authority to impose fines even if not stated in CC&Rs.

Nahrstedt v Lakeside Village (1994). Association has a fiduciary duty to enforce CC&Rs. Challenger must show restriction is wholly arbitrary, violates a fundamental public policy, or imposes burdens on the use of the affected property that substantially outweigh the restriction's benefit.

Oceanside v McKenna (1989). Neither the lack of written standards nor the allowance of rent-paying roommates in owner-occupied units puts the association's lease restriction in violation of Code of Reg. § 2792.25(a).

O'Connor v Village Green (1983). Association's restriction limiting residency to persons over 18 years of age is a violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act.

Pacifica HOA v Wesley Palms (1986). Owners have no natural right to air, light, or view unless created by law, ordinance, an easement or CC&Rs.

Pamela W v Millsom (1994). Association not liable for injuries of rape victim if criminal activity was not foreseeable.

Park Place Estates v Naber (1994). Members cannot offset their dues. They must first pay their assessments and then file their grievances. “A system that would tolerate a [condominium] owner's refusal to pay an assessment because the unit owner asserts a grievance . . . would threaten the financial integrity of the entire condominium operation.”

Posey v Leavitt (1991). Members may sue Association for failure to enforce CC&Rs. There is no right to a view unless in the CC&Rs. An encroachment is both a trespass and a nuisance. Nuisance is the substantial interference with the use and enjoyment of the land. An action to abate a nuisance is in equity. Common area encroachments require the approval of all members since each one has an easement over the encroached area.

Raven's Cove v Knuppe (1981). Associations have standing to sue for construction defects. Developers are strictly liable for defects. Measure of damages is the cost of remedying the defects. Directors of associations are fiduciaries who are required to exercise their powers in accordance with the duties imposed by the Corporations Code. Developers have a basic fiduciary duty to act in good faith, exercise proper management, and avoid conflicts of interest.

Rancho Santa Fe v. Dolan-King (2004). Boards can clarify and define architectural terms provided they do not contradict the CC&Rs.

Ritchey v Villa Nueva (1978). CC&R amendments are binding on all owners. Association can issue rules to prevent activities which might prove annoying or a nuisance to others such as disposition of refuse, maintenance and repair, pet regulations, prohibiting alcohol in common areas, prohibiting washing machines in units, and occupancy restrictions.

Smith v Laguna Sur Villas (2000). Association is the holder of the attorney-client privilege, and board is not required to disclose privileged information to individual owners.

Villa de Las Palmas v Terifaj (2004). Subsequently enacted and recorded restrictions are enforceable against current owners.

Villa Milano HOA v Davorge (2000). Binding arbitration clause in CC&Rs does not prevent homeowners from suing the developer for construction and design defects.

Index
Newsletters
Adams Kessler