- Affan v. Portofino Cove Homeowners Association
(2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 930[Maintenance; Board Deference] The deference afforded to HOA Boards may not extend to situations where the Board fails to act or to investigate the scope of required maintenance or repairs.
- Alfaro v. Community Housing Improvements System & Planning
(2009) Cal.App.4th 1356[Deed Restriction; Enforceable] A Deed Restriction that requires the properties to remain affordable to buyers with very low to moderate income is considered a valid, reasonable and enforceable restriction.
- Almanor Lakeside Villas Owners Association v. Carson
(2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 761[Attorney’s Fees; Prevailing Party] Where both sides achieved some positive net effect as a result of the court’s ruling, a prevailing party determination is made by comparing the practical effect of the relief attained by each; After resolving the issue of prevailing party in an action to enforce the governing documents, a trial court has ...
- Alpert v. Villa Romano Homeowners Association
(2000) 96 Cal.Rptr.2d364[Maintenance; Duty of Care] HOA’s responsibility with respect to maintenance and repair of sidewalks adjacent to HOA’s property.
- Barry v. OC Residential Properties
(2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 861[Foreclosure; Redemption Price] When a property is sold through nonjudicial foreclosure of an assessment lien, the redemption price may include maintenance and repair expenses incurred by the purchaser during the redemption period that were reasonable necessary for the preservation of the property.
- Beacon Residential Community Association v. Skidmore
(2014) 59 Cal. 4th 568[Construction Defect; Architect Liability] An architect who functions as the principal architect on a residential construction project owes a duty of care to future homeowners.
- Bear Creek Master Association v. Edwards
(2005) 31 Cal.Rptr.3d 337[Duty to pay; Assessment Liens] A recorded assessment lien secures the assessment debt that continues to accrue on the owner’s account; the debt is not limited solely to the amount stated in the lien at the time the lien was initially recorded.
- Bear Creek Planning Committee v. Ferwerda
(2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 1178[Architectural Control; Architectural Standards] A HOA had the authority to adopt architectural standards beyond those set forth in the CC&Rs based upon empowering language in the CC&Rs governing the same.
- Beehan v. Lido Isle Community Association
(1977) 70 Cal.App.3d 858[Enforcement; Discretion to Litigation] A HOA’s Board of Directors may in its discretion decline to take legal action to enforce a perceived violation of the governing documents.
- Berryman v. Merit Property Management, Inc.
(2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 1544[Association Records; Transfer Document Fees] An association’s managing agent is permitted to earn a profit on the fees it charges for providing property transfer documents.
- Blue Lagoon Community Association. v. Mitchell
(1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 472[Amendments to CC&Rs; Court Petition] Objectors to a petition brought pursuant to Civ. Code § 1356 (§ 4275) are not entitled to costs and attorney’s fees when the petition is denied.
- Brown v. Professional Community Management, Inc.
(2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 532[Assessments & Collection; Collection Fees] An association’s vendors are permitted to earn a profit on the fees it charges in connection with collecting delinquent assessments owed to the association.
- Carolyn v. Orange Park Community Association
(2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 1090[Discrimination; ADA Compliance] HOA’s private common area facilities not held to be places of “public accommodation” subject to Americans with Disability Act (ADA) requirements
- Cerro De Alcala Homeowners Assn. v. Burns
(1985) 169 Cal.App.3d Supp. 1[Assessments & Collection; Duty to Pay] A homeowner may not avoid his/her obligation to pay assessments levied by a HOA merely because the homeowner abandons possession of the property.
- Chantiles v. Lake Forest II Master Homeowners Association
(1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 914[Director Inspection Rights; Privacy] A director’s record inspection rights may be limited by the association’s duty to protect the privacy rights of its members in their voting decisions.
- Cobb v. Ironwood Country Club
(2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 960[ADR; Bylaws Amendment] An amendment to the Bylaws by the HOA incorporating an arbitration provision does not bind ongoing disputes and accrued claims.
- Cohen v. Kite Hill Community Association
(1983) 142 Cal.App.3d 642[Architectural Control; Duty to Act in Good Faith] When exercising its architectural control authority, an association owes a fiduciary duty to its members to act in good faith, and to not make decisions that are arbitrary or capricious.
- Colony Hill v. Ghamaty
(2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 1156[Rent Restrictions; Single-Family Use] A “single-family” use restriction in the association’s CC&Rs could prohibit an owner from renting portions of his unit to separate, unrelated individuals that did not have any pre-existing or ‘familial’-type relationship with each other. Such a restriction did not violate the owner’s rights of privacy under the California Constitution.
- Coronado v. Cobblestone Village Community Rentals
(2009) 163 Cal.App.4th 831[Discrimination; ADA Compliance] Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and related federal regulations implementing the ADA do not apply to portions of private residential facilities that are not open to the general public.
- Diamond Heights Village Association, Inc. v. Financial Freedom Senior Funding Corp.
(2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 290[Assessment Collection; Judgment Lien Merger] When a HOA assessment lien is enforced by the HOA through judicial action, the debt secured by the assessment lien is merged into the judgment.
- Diamond v. Superior Court
(2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 1172[Assessment Collection; Notice Requirements] A HOA must strictly adhere to the statutory lien and foreclosure notice requirements in order to perfect an assessment lien and foreclose on a homeowner’s property.
- Dolan-King v. Rancho Sante Fe Association
(2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 965[Architectural Control; Judicial Deference] An association may grant discretionary authority to an Architectural Committee to apply subjective, aesthetic criteria for approving member applications for proposed architectural improvements.
- Dover Village Association v. Jennison
(2010) 191 Cal.App.4th 123[Maintenance; Board Deference] The deference afforded to HOA Boards for maintenance decisions does not extend to the Board’s interpretation as to the scope of the HOA’s maintenance responsibilities under its CC&Rs.
- Duffey v. Superior Court
(1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 425[Declaration; Enforcement] HOAs may file declaratory relief actions for an authoritative interpretation of the governing documents; An owner need not be a defendant in any lawsuit brought by a HOA to discharge its own duty to enforce the CC&Rs simply because that owner complains about a neighbor’s proposed construction.
- Ekstrom v. Marquesa at Monarch Beach Homeowners Association
(2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 1111[Architectural Control; Board Powers] An association’s board of directors may not adopt rules that are in conflict with the CC&Rs.
- Elnekave v. Via Dolce Homeowners Association
(2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 1193 A decision to enter into settlement may be invalidated where it was not made in cooperation with the HOA’s Directors.
- Farber v. Bay View Terrace Homeowners Association
(2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 1007[Enforcement; Standing to Sue] A prior owner of a unit within an association does not have standing to enforce the CC&Rs.
- Fourth La Costa Condominium Owners Association v. Seith
(1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 472[CC&R Amendments; Real Estate Signs] Court upheld lender consent requirement for CC&R amendment, rather than lender vote; Real estate signs may be regulated for aesthetic purposes and may be prohibited from being posted in HOA common areas.
- Frances T. v. Village Green Owners Association
(1986) 42 Cal.3d 490 Directors may be required to exercise reasonable care in protecting persons from criminal activity.
- Friars Village Homeowners Assn. v. Hansing
(2013) 220 Cal. App. 4th 405[Election Rules; Director Qualifications] Court upheld association’s authority to adopt election rules which prohibited closely-related members from being nominated to serve as directors.
- Golden Gateway Center v. Golden Gateway Tenants Association
(2001) 111 Cal.Rptr.2d 336[Freedom of Speech; Private Property] Actions of a private property owner constitute state action for purposes of California’s free speech clause only if the property is freely and openly accessible to the public.
- Grossman v. Park Fort Washington Association
(2012) 212 Cal. App. 4th 1128[Attorney’s Fees; ADR; Pre-Litigation] Pre-litigation attorney’s fees that are incurred in alternative dispute resolution (ADR) are recoverable by the prevailing party in subsequent ligation.
- Harvey v. The Landing Homeowners Association
(2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 809 The burden of proof transfers onto the person challenging the interested transaction when the interested Director makes full disclosure of all material facts and recused himself from the board’s discussion and vote.
- Havlicek v. Coast-to-Coast Analytic Services, Inc.
(1995) 39 Cal.App.4th 1844 A director’s rights to inspect corporate records may be denied where the corporation believes such rights will be used to commit a tort against the corporation.
- Heather Farms Homeowners Association v. Robinson
(1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 1568[Attorney’s Fees; Prevailing Party] The determination as to who is the “prevailing party” entitled to its attorney’s fees under the Davis-Stirling Act is based on the court’s analysis of which party prevailed on a practical level. When that determination is made, the court’s ruling should be affirmed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion.
- Huntington Continental Townhouse Association, Inc. v. Miner
(2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 590[Assessments & Collection; Partial Payments] An association is required to accept partial payments made by a delinquent homeowner and allocate them in accordance with Civil Code Section 5655, even after the association has recorded an assessment lien.
- Ironwood Owners Association IX v. Solomon
(1986) 178 Cal.App.3d 766[Architectural Control; Enforcement] A HOA must show that it has followed its own standards and procedures when taking action to enforce violations of its governing documents.
- Laguna Royale Owners Association v. Darger
(1981) 119 Cal.App.3d 670 Reasonableness of an association’s restrictions and powers is determined by whether they are rationally related to the protection, preservation or proper operation of the Association and its purposes.
- Lamden v. La Jolla Shores Clubdominium Homeowners Association
(1999) 21 Cal.4th 249[Rule of Judicial Deference; Maintenance] Courts will defer to decisions made by a HOA Board of Directors regarding ordinary maintenance of a common interest development.
- Liebler v. Point Loma Tennis Club
(1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 1600[Operating Rules; Non-Resident Use] A HOA may create and enforce a rule excluding non-resident owners from use of the HOA’s common area recreational facilities.
- Market Lofts Community Association v. 9th Market Lofts, LLC
(2014) 222 Cal.App.4th 924[Association Standing to Sue] Right of association to challenge developer agreements; right to bring suit as representative of association’s members.
- Martin v. Bridgeport Community Association
(2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 1024[CC&R Enforcement; Renter Standing] The right to enforce CC&Rs is tied to ownership in a property; renters do not have standing to sue a HOA for a violation of its CC&Rs.
- Mashiri v. Epsten Grinnell & Howell
(2017) 845 F.3d 984[FDCPA; Collection Notice] Homeowner successfully alleged that HOA law firm violated FDCPA because pre-lien notice payment demand timeline was inconsistent with the right under the FDCPA to dispute the debt within 30 days of receipt of letter.
- Mayo v. Interment Properties, Inc.
(1942) 53 Cal.App.2d 654[Board of Directors; Director Resignation] A resigning director may participate in the selection of his/her replacement where the selection takes place prior to the effective date of the resignation.
- Mission Shores Association v. Pheil
(2008) 83 Cal.App.4th 789[Amendments to CC&Rs; Rent Restriction] An amendment to the CC&Rs which empowered the HOA to evict tenants who violate the CC&Rs was held to be reasonable.
- Multani v. Witkin & Neal
(2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 1428[Assessment Collection; Redemption Rights] A nonjudicial foreclosure sale may be set aside where a HOA fails to notify the foreclosed owner of his/her redemption rights after the foreclosure sale.
- Nahrstedt v. Lakeside Village Condominium Association, Inc.
(1994) 8 Cal. 4th 361[Governing Documents; Use Restrictions] CC&R restrictions are presumed reasonable, and are enforceable unless they are arbitrary, impose burdens on the use of land that outweigh their benefits, or violate public policy.
- Nellie Gail Ranch Owners Association v. McMullin
(2016) 4 Cal.App.5th 982[Encroachments; Trespass; Adverse Possession] A homeowner may not establish an adverse possession claim over HOA common area without showing that the homeowner paid all property taxes for the disputed area; Equitable easements may not be granted to an encroaching homeowner whose trespass was willful or negligent.
- O’Connor v. Village Green Owners Association
(1983) 33 Cal.3d 790[Discrimination; CC&R Age Restrictions] A provision in a HOA’s CC&Rs prohibiting residency by persons under the age of 18 is discriminatory, invalid and unenforceable.
- Pacific Hills Homeowners Association v. Prun
(2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 1557[Architectural Control; Statute of Limitations] The 5 year statute of limitations under Code Civ. Pro. § 336 applies to both recorded restrictions as well as unrecorded restrictions such as architectural guidelines.
- Palm Springs Villas II HOA v. Parth
(2016) 248 Cal.App.4th 268[Fiduciary Duty; Business Judgment Rule] The Business Judgment Rule does not automatically shield a HOA director from liability that may result from the director’s failure to exercise reasonable diligence or failure to act within the scope of the director’s authority under the HOA’s governing documents.
- Park Place Estates Homeowners Association v. Naber
(1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 427[Assessments & Collection; Duty to Pay Assessments] An association member may not assert the homeowners association’s (HOA’s) conduct as a defense or “setoff” to an action brought by the HOA against the member for the member’s failure to pay assessments.
- Parrott v. Mooring Townhomes Association
(2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 873[Attorney’s Fees; Prevailing Party] The court found the Association to be the prevailing party and awarded its attorney fees after homeowners filed a request for dismissal of complaint.
- Peak Investments v. South Peak Homeowners Association, Inc.
(2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 1363[CC&R Amendments; Court Petition] Proposed HOA CC&R amendments must be approved by at least a simple majority of the total votes in a HOA before a trial court may reduce the approval requirement set in the CC&Rs.
- Posey v. Leavitt
(1991) 229 Cal.App.3d 1236[Restrictions; Duty to Enforce] A homeowner has the right to sue the HOA to compel the HOA to uphold its duty to enforce the restrictions.
- Rancho Mirage Country Club Homeowners Association v. Hazelbaker
(2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 252[Attorney’s Fees; ADR; Settlement Agreement] An action to enforce a settlement agreement reached between a HOA and an owner through Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) was held to be an action to enforce the governing documents entitling the prevailing party to an award of attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to Civ. Code § 5975.
- Rancho Sante Fe Association v. Dolan-King
(2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 28[Architectural Control; Architectural Standards] A HOA’s architectural standards could be used to define undefined architectural restrictions/terms contained in the CC&Rs.
- Raven’s Cove Townhomes, Inc. v. Knuppe Development Co.
(1981) 114 Cal.App.3d 783[Fiduciary Duties; Reserve Account] A HOA board’s failure to properly fund a reserve account constituted a breach of their fiduciary duties to the HOA and its members.
- Ritchey v. Villa Nueva Condominium Association
(1978) 81 Cal.App.3d 688[Use Restrictions; Nuisances] A HOA has the power to issue reasonable regulations governing an owner’s use of his unit in order to prevent activities which might prove annoying to the general residents.
- Ritter & Ritter v. Churchill Condominium Association
(2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 103[Maintenance; Board Deference] The deference afforded to HOA boards covers only “ordinary” maintenance; the “Lamden Rule” only insulates directors from liability, not the HOA.
- Ruoff v. Harbor Creek Community Association
(1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 1624[Insurance; Liability] A HOA’s members were held personally liable in excess of the HOA’s insurance policy limit for injuries stemming from the HOA’s common areas that were owned by the HOA’s members as tenants in common.
- Ryland Mews Homeowners Association v. Munoz
(2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 705
[Architectural Control; Nuisances; Hardsurface Flooring] A HOA has the authority to place restrictions on the type of flooring that may be installed in a homeowner’s unit in order to prevent the creation of nuisances.
- Salehi v. Surfside III Condominium Owners Association
(2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 1146[Attorney’s Fees; Prevailing Party] A HOA is deemed a prevailing party entitled to recover its attorney’s fees where the outcome of the lawsuit results in the HOA realizing its litigation objectives on a practical level.
- SB Liberty, LLC v. Isla Verde Association, Inc.
(2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 272[Board Meetings; Attendance Rights] The right to attend a HOA’s board meetings extends only to the HOA’s members, not a member’s agent or attorney.
- Seahaus La Jolla Owners Association v. Superior Court
(2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 754[Attorney-client privilege; Homeowners] Attorney-client privilege applies to communication between association’s attorney and homeowners.
- Smith v. Laguna Sur Villas Community Association
(2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 639[Association Records; Attorney-Client Privilege] A HOA, the corporate entity, is entitled to claim attorney-client privilege for communications between the HOA and its attorneys. The HOA’s members are not the holders of the privilege; rather, the HOA’s Board of Directors is the holder of the privilege.
- Talega Maintenance Corporation v. Standard Pacific Corporation
(2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 722[Board meetings; Protected Speech & Anti-SLAPP] Statements made at HOA Board meetings are not matters of “public interest” nor “official proceedings” that are entitled to constitutional protection under anti-SLAPP statutes.
- Tesoro del Valle Master Homeowners Assn. v. Griffin
(2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 619[Architectural Control; Solar Energy] An association may consider aesthetic impacts in connection with reviewing and approving an owner’s application for a proposed solar energy system.
- That v. Alders Maintenance Corporation
(2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 1419[Elections; Legal Challenges] Where a HOA prevails in an action brought against it on the basis of alleged election violations, the HOA is not entitled to recover its attorney’s fees even where the action is found to be frivolous.
- Topanga Assn. for a Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles
(1974) 11 Cal.3d 506[Zoning Variance] An administrative agency must render findings supporting its decision to issue a zoning variance, and such findings must be supported by substantial evidence.
- Tract 19051 Homeowners Association v. Kemp
(2015) 60 Cal. 4th 1135[Attorney’s Fees Awards; Non-CID Action] Attorney’s fees may be recovered by the prevailing party under Civ. Code § 5975 in an action to enforce the governing documents regardless of whether the association is in fact a common interest development that is subject to the Davis-Stirling Act.
- Tract No. 7260 Association, Inc. v. Parker
(2017) 10 Cal.App.5th 24[Membership List; Inspection Denial] A homeowners association (HOA) may restrict a member’s request for access to the HOA’s membership list when the request is for an improper purpose.
- Tritek Telecom, Inc. v. Superior Court
(2009) 169 Cal.App.4th 1385 A director’s right to inspect corporate records does not include the right to access attorney-client privileged information that was generated in defense of a suit filed by the director against the corporation.
- Villa De Las Palmas Homeowners Association v. Terifaj
(2004) 33 Cal.4th 73[CC&R Amendments; Binding Effect] CC&R amendments enacted by homeowners are accorded the same presumption of reasonableness as those imposed by developer; CC&R amendments are binding against both current and future homeowners.
- Ward v. Superior Court
(1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 60[Enforcement; Recorded Notice of Noncompliance] An association is not legally authorized to record a notice of noncompliance in response to a member’s violation of the CC&Rs.
- Watts v. Oak Shores Community Association
(2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 466[Operating Rules; Rental Activities; Board Deference] Homeowners associations may adopt reasonable rules and impose fees on members relating to short-term rentals of condominium units.
- Wittenburg v. Beachwalk Homeowners Association
(2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 654[Elections; Equal Access] Where a board utilizes HOA media to advocate its point of view regarding an upcoming election, equal access to such media must also be provided to any member advocating a point of view on the issue.
- Wolf v. CDS Devco
(2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 903 A director loses his/her broader record-inspection rights upon loss of status as a director.
- Woodridge Escondido Property Owners Association v. Nielson
(2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 559[Architectural Control] A HOA’s architectural committee does not have the authority to approve an improvement which is in violation of the CC&Rs.
- Worldmark v. Wyndham Resort Dev. Corp.
(2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 1017[Membership List; Email Addresses] The “addresses” of members which must be disclosed with a member’s request to inspect the membership list pursuant to Corp. Code § 8330(a) includes the members’ email addresses.