PLANS & PRICING

Alfaro v. Community Housing Improvements System & Planning (2009) Cal.App.4th 1356 In Alfaro v. Community Housing Improvement System & Planning Assn., Inc. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 1356, the case involved residential purchasers who claimed that when they entered into purchase contracts, they were not informed about existing affordable housing restrictions recorded against the properties. The purchasers, instead of making monetary downpayments, invested significant time and labor in constructing the homes. They allegedly discovered the affordable housing restrictions only after dedicating time and labor to acquiring the properties. Despite the fact that the purchasers were deemed to have constructive notice of the recorded affordable housing restrictions, the court held that this did not absolve the seller of all duties of disclosure. The court emphasized that just because a purchaser has constructive notice of a recorded matter, it does not eliminate the seller's obligation to disclose relevant information. In this case, the court reversed a judgment in favor of the seller, which followed the sustaining of a demurrer, supporting the purchasers' argument that there was a breach of the duty to disclose. The decision in Alfaro underscores that constructive notice does not relieve sellers or their agents from their duty to disclose pertinent information to buyers.

Affan v. Portofino Cove Homeowners Association (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 930 In 1986, Akil and Cenan Affan purchased unit 107 in the Portofino Cove Condominiums as a vacation home. From 1999 to 2005, they faced recurring plumbing backups in their unit, discovering sewage residue in their kitchen sink or bathroom nine times during this period. After each incident, the Affans reported the problem to the property manager and at least one board member of the Portofino Cove Condominium Association (the Association), responsible for the complex. The Affans' unit, located on the first floor, shared vertical drain pipes with units above, leading to common plumbing issues. Two of their first-floor neighbors, who were also board members, experienced similar sewage problems. In April 2003, Cenan wrote a letter to the Association's board, expressing dissatisfaction and recommending annual maintenance for the drain lines. On April 21, 2005, when the kitchen sink backed up again, Akil contacted the property manager, Kevin Brown, employed by Huntington West Properties, the Association's managing agent since early 2004. Akil emphasized the chronic nature of the issue and requested a thorough investigation by a "master plumber." Around the same time, Huntington West began considering regular maintenance for the main drain lines to address the recurring problems more systematically. The board directed Brown to develop a scope of work for a maintenance contract and collect bids. Despite some earlier indications in meeting minutes from 2001, no evidence showed the actual contracting or maintenance work before May 2005. When Akil reported the 2005 backup to Brown, the property manager suggested Akil attend the Association board meeting, where it was revealed that the board had recently signed a five-year contract with Rescue Rooter for annual routine maintenance on the main plumbing lines. This marked a shift from the previous reactive approach to a proactive strategy in addressing the ongoing plumbing issues in the complex.

Alpert v. Villa Romano Homeowners Association (2000) 96 Cal.Rptr.2d364 In Alpert v. Villa Romano Homeowners Assn (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1320, the case centered around a situation where the roots of trees owned and maintained by the defendant homeowners' association caused damage to an adjoining public sidewalk, resulting in a hazardous condition. The damaged sidewalk led to an "uplifted" and broken portion that caused the plaintiff to trip and fall. The Second District, Division Two, overturned the trial court's grant of nonsuit, asserting that the defendant had a duty to either warn pedestrians about the sidewalk defect or repair it. The court, applying the principles established in Alcaraz, highlighted that the homeowners' association, as the entity responsible for planting and maintaining the trees adjacent to the sidewalk, was deemed to be in possession and control of the sidewalk. This responsibility arose because the trees' roots, under the association's care, had caused the sidewalk to become distorted. The court outlined the appropriate standard of review for a judgment entered upon a grant of nonsuit after the close of the plaintiff's case-in-chief. In such cases, the appellate court examines the entire trial record, interpreting the evidence in the light most favorable to the appellant. The court does not assess the weight of the evidence or the credibility of witnesses; instead, it accepts as true the evidence most favorable to the plaintiff. The judgment of the trial court cannot be upheld unless, considering the evidence in this manner, a judgment for the defendant is mandated as a matter of law. In this specific case, the court found that the defendant homeowners' association had a duty to address the sidewalk defect, leading to the reversal of the nonsuit granted by the trial court.

Artus v. Gramercy Towers Condominium Assn. (2022) (2022) 76 Cal.App.5th 1043 In the case of Artus v. Gramercy Towers Condominium Association, a condominium owner filed a lawsuit against her homeowners' association, alleging five causes of action related to rules governing elections, voting, sales, and leasing. The lawsuit sought injunctive and declaratory relief. One cause of action was dismissed through a demurrer, and another through an anti-SLAPP motion to strike. The association later amended its rules, rendering three of the claims moot. Following these developments, both parties sought attorney fees under the Davis-Sterling Act (Civ. Code 4000). Additionally, the homeowner sought fees under Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5, claiming to be the successful party. The court of appeal upheld the denial of attorney fees to both parties. It noted that Artus failed to demonstrate an abuse of discretion by the trial court, which found that she was not a "successful party." The court emphasized that Artus did not show that her lawsuit resulted in a "significant benefit" to the general public or a large class of persons. The one notable win for Artus, which required the association to put in greater effort in preparing notice materials for proposed rule changes, was considered of questionable significance to most association members and could potentially lead to higher assessments. The court concluded that the association had taken unilateral action to avoid judicial rulings, essentially deferring the resolution of issues and "kicking the can down the road."

Almanor Lakeside Villas Owners Association v. Carson (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 761 homeowners' associations (HOAs), citing concerns about their perceived excessive power and heavy-handed use of authority. The opinion is reinforced by the case of Almanor Lakeside Villas Owners Ass'n v. Carson, which is presented as an example of the problematic nature of HOAs. In this case, the homeowners' association sought to impose fines and fees against the defendants for alleged rule violations related to the leasing of their properties as short-term vacation rentals. While the defendants disputed some fines, the trial court ultimately awarded the association $6,620 for the "non-use" of boat decals, deeming it reasonable. Additionally, the court awarded a substantial amount of $98,535 in attorneys' fees and $3,267 in costs, totaling $101,803. The author criticizes the court's decision, questioning the economic rationale of spending over $100,000 in attorney fees to pursue a $50,000 claim. The court's determination that the association, despite being awarded a significantly reduced amount, qualifies as the "prevailing party" under the Davis-Sterling Act is highlighted. This designation gives the association the right to recover its attorney's fees. The article concludes with a cautionary note to practicing attorneys, suggesting that this case makes it challenging to advise homeowners to contest charges by HOAs, regardless of the merits of the case. The case, Almanor Lakeside Villas Owners Ass'n v. Carson, is portrayed as emblematic of a growing dichotomy in California, where the economic perspective applied in legal matters might appear distorted, leading to outcomes that the author finds shocking. The subjective nature of "reasonableness" is emphasized, drawing parallels with the subjective nature of beauty.

Branches Neighborhood Corporation v. CalAtlantic Group, Inc. (2018) 26 Cal.App.5th 743 The case involves a dispute between the plaintiff, Branches Neighborhood Corporation (Branches), and the defendant, CalAtlantic Group, Inc. (formerly known as Standard Pacific Corp.), regarding construction defects in a community association located in Ladera Ranch. Branches filed an arbitration claim against Standard for construction defects, seeking damages exceeding $5 million. However, the arbitrator granted summary judgment in Standard's favor, ruling that Branches did not obtain the required consent of its members before filing the claim, as stipulated in the association's declaration of covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CC&Rs). Branches appealed the trial court's denial of its motion to vacate the arbitration award, arguing that the arbitrator exceeded his powers by abridging an unwaivable statutory right or public policy. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, rejecting Branches' arguments. The court's decision rested on several key points: Facts: Branches initiated pre-litigation procedures with Standard in March 2015, but ultimately filed an arbitration claim in January 2016 without obtaining the required consent of its members. Legal Framework: The California Arbitration Act (CAA) provides a narrow scope for judicial review of arbitration awards, typically limiting review to statutory grounds for vacating or correcting an award. Exception to Finality of Arbitration Award: An arbitrator may exceed their powers if they violate a party's unwaivable statutory rights or contravene explicit legislative expressions of public policy. However, this exception is applied narrowly. Statutory Rights: Branches argued that various sections of the Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act and the Corporations Code conferred upon it the statutory right to ratify its actions. However, the court found that none of the cited statutes supported Branches' position. Public Policy: The court determined that requiring membership consent before initiating legal action against a developer aligns with the Act's aim to balance the association's efficiency with the members' rights to be informed and participate in decisions. Therefore, the CC&Rs provision requiring prior consent did not violate public policy. Conclusion: The court affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that there was no violation of public policy in the arbitrator's ruling, and judicial review of the arbitration award was not warranted. In summary, the court's decision upheld the arbitration award in favor of Standard, emphasizing the importance of adherence to the association's governing documents and statutory provisions in resolving disputes within community associations.

Barry v. OC Residential Properties (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 861 In the case of Barry v. OC Residential Properties LLC (2011), the plaintiff, Shelby E. Barry, filed a petition in the superior court to determine the redemption price for her unit in a common interest development. The defendant, OC Residential Properties, LLC, had acquired the unit through a nonjudicial foreclosure sale. The trial court determined the amount due for redemption to be $18,148.71, which included expenses incurred by the defendant for maintenance and repair work on the property, an electric bill, and interest on the foreclosure sale purchase price. Shelby Barry challenged the inclusion of these amounts in the redemption price and questioned the constitutionality of the procedure for determining the redemption amount. However, the court found no error and affirmed the order. The facts of the case revealed that the plaintiff had acquired a unit in a common interest development in 1977 and had leased it to others over the years. Due to the plaintiff's failure to pay monthly association fees, the property underwent a foreclosure sale in 2009, with OC Residential Properties purchasing the unit. The defendant conducted repairs and maintenance on the property, intending to resell it. Barry's petition contested the redemption amount set by the trustee, arguing against including repair expenses, utility payments, and interest in the redemption price. The trial court, after a hearing, upheld the redemption price, stating that the plaintiff failed to prove that the work performed by the defendant was not for reasonable maintenance, upkeep, and repair of the property. The case involved the right of redemption in nonjudicial foreclosure proceedings, specifically in the context of a common interest development. The court applied Code of Civil Procedure section 729.060, which outlines the components of the redemption price, including the purchase price, assessments, taxes, and amounts for property maintenance and repair. The burden of proof in challenging the redemption price rested on the person seeking redemption. Plaintiff's constitutional challenge to the redemption procedure, claiming a lack of due process, was rejected by the court. The court emphasized that the statutory procedure provided an opportunity for a noticed hearing before a judicial tribunal to challenge the redemption amount. Moreover, the court addressed the defendant's right to enter and repair the unit, emphasizing that the foreclosure sale gave OC Residential Properties the statutory right to enter the property for repairs and maintenance. The court rejected claims of trespassing and confirmed the legality of the defendant's actions. The court also considered the repair and maintenance expenses claimed by the defendant. Plaintiff's arguments against the validity of repair costs were dismissed, and the court held that the burden of proof was on the petitioner, in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure section 729.070. Finally, the court denied plaintiff's request for an offset, stating that interest on the purchase price was a valid component of the redemption price under Code of Civil Procedure section 729.060. The incomplete repair work was attributed to plaintiff's repossession of the unit during the rehabilitation process. In conclusion, the court affirmed the order determining the redemption price, upholding the inclusion of repair expenses and rejecting the plaintiff's constitutional and procedural challenges.

Bear Creek Planning Committee v. Ferwerda (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 1178 In the case of Bear Creek Planning Committee v. Ferwerda, the 4th District Court of Appeal in California upheld a decision in favor of the Bear Creek Planning Committee, affirming the architectural committee's authority to adopt architectural standards that went beyond the standards outlined in the association's Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). The dispute centered around the Bear Creek community's architectural standards, and the homeowners' association's architectural committee had adopted standards that were more stringent than those explicitly specified in the CC&Rs. The Ferwerda, as homeowners, challenged the authority of the architectural committee to impose standards beyond what was originally outlined in the CC&Rs. The court, in its decision, supported the architectural committee's discretion to establish architectural standards that exceeded the minimum requirements set forth in the CC&Rs. The ruling emphasized the importance of giving autonomy to architectural committees to make decisions that enhance the overall aesthetics and consistency of the community, even if those decisions surpass the baseline standards mentioned in the CC&Rs. This case highlights the court's recognition of the architectural committee's role in ensuring a cohesive and visually appealing community by setting architectural standards that may go beyond the minimum requirements specified in the CC&Rs. The decision reinforces the authority of homeowners' associations and their architectural committees to implement rules that contribute to the overall character and appearance of the community.