“In 1985, the Legislature enacted the Davis–Stirling Act as division 2, part 4, title 6 of the Civil Code, ‘Common Interest Developments' (Secs. 1350–1376; Stats.1985, ch. 874, Sec. 14, at 2774–2787), which encompasses community apartment projects, condominium projects, planned developments and stock cooperatives (Sec. 1351(c)). ‘A common interest development shall be managed by an association which may be incorporated or unincorporated. The association may be referred to as a community association.’ (Sec. 1363(a).)” (Diamond v. Super. Ct. of Santa Clara Cnty. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 1172, 1183-84 citing Lamden v. La Jolla Shores Clubdominium Homeowners Assn. (1999) 21 Cal.4th 249, 253, fn. 1.)
The Act “applies and a common interest development is created whenever a separate interest coupled with an interest in the common area or membership in the association is, or has been, conveyed, provided, all of the following are recorded: [¶] (a) A declaration. [¶] (b) A condominium plan, if any exists. [¶] (c) A final map or parcel map....” (Id., Sec. 1352.)
A planned development is one “having either or both of the following features:
(Civ. Code, Sec. 1351(k).)
A ‘separate interest’ is ‘a separately owned lot, parcel, area, or space.’ (Id., 1351(l)(3).) A ‘[c]ommon area’ is ‘the entire common interest development except the separate interests therein. The estate in the common area may be a fee, a life estate, an estate for years, or any combination of the foregoing. However, the common area for a planned development specified in paragraph (2) of subdivision (k) may consist of mutual or reciprocal easement rights appurtenant to the separate interests.’ (Id., subd. (b).) (Committee to Save v. Beverly Highlands (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 1247, 1262.)
Where a “[t]rial court ruled that the [nonprofit mutual benefit corporation's ownership and governance of non-buildable lots] was a common interest development within the meaning of the Davis-Stirling Act[,]... under Corporations Code section 8724, therefore, the approval of 100 percent of the members was required for dissolution of the Association and a transfer of the Association's assets. (Committee to Save v. Beverly Highlands (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 1247, 1262-63)
Corporations Code section 8724 provides: “Without the approval of 100 percent of the members, . . . so long as there is any lot, parcel, area, apartment or unit for which an owners association (as defined in Section 11003.1 of the Business and Professions Code and created in connection with any of the forms of development referred to in Section 11004.5 of the Business and Professions Code) is obligated to provide management, maintenance, preservation or control:
(Committee to Save v. Beverly Highlands (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 1247, 1263 n. 6; see also Corp. § 8724.)
Corporations Code Section 7527 provides:
"An action challenging the validity of any election, appointment or removal of a director or directors must be commenced within nine months after the election, appointment or removal. If no such action is commenced, in the absence of fraud, any election, appointment or removal of a director is conclusively presumed valid nine months thereafter."
“Section 7616 of the Corporations Code refers to "Judicial determination of validity of election or appointment." It appears in chapter 6, part 3, division 2, title 1 of the Corporations Code. Chapter 6 addresses voting of memberships. Section 7616 provides, in pertinent part, that "[u]pon the filing of an action therefor by any director or member or by any person who had the right to vote in the election at issue, the superior court of the proper county shall determine the validity of any election or appointment of any director of any corporation." (Subd. (a).) The section does not contain a limitations period.” (Committee to Save v. Beverly Highlands (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 1247, 1264.)
“Section 7527 refers to "any election, appointment or removal of a director or directors." (Subd. (a).) It appears in an article on provisions relating to the election of directors. The language of the section, as well as the context in which it appears, suggests that the only elections to which it applies are elections "of a director or directors.” (Committee to Save v. Beverly Highlands (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 1247, 1264-66 citing California Mfrs. Assn. v. Public Utilities Com. (1979) 24 Cal.3d 836, at 844.)
“Section 7616 refers to ‘election or appointment of any director of any corporation.’ (Subd. (a).) ... Subdivision (c) of section 7616 requires ‘a copy of the complaint to be served upon the corporation and upon the person whose purported election or appointment is questioned.’ In other words, subdivision (c) presupposes that the election is of a person, i.e., a director. Therefore, section 7616 does not mandate the interpretation of the term "election" in section 7527 as applying to any election, not merely an election for directors.” (Committee to Save v. Beverly Highlands (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 1247, 1264-66 citing Lungren v. Deukmejian (1988) 45 Cal.3d 727, California Mfrs. Assn. v. Public Utilities Com., supra, 24 Cal.3d at p. 844.)
CDM additionally argues that it is not liable to the Plaintiffs under the Davis-Sterling Act. Brown v. Professional Community Management, Inc., 127 Cal. App. 4th 532, 540 (2005) is dispositive on this point. The management company is not named in the code provisions cited by Plaintiffs and Brown informs that it is therefore not subject to liability for these alleged violations.
Campins
Contra Costa County, CA
Plaintiff only cites one case that actually considered the issue of attorneys’ fees pursuant to the Davis-Sterling Act, and the Court has therefore focused its attention on that particular case. The case is Salawy v. Ocean Towers Housing Corp. (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 664. In Salawy, the plaintiffs were shareholders in an apartment cooperative.
Los Angeles County, CA
Village Green Owners Ass’n (1986) 42 Cal.3 490, 503, plaintiffs argue in opposition that a member of a nonprofit corporation has standing to bring an action against directors of the non-profit corporation for any misconduct; and plaintiffs have alleged defendants’ violations of very important consumer protection provisions in the Davis-Sterling Act and allege damages resulting therefrom. - HOA Members’ Standing to Sue Individual Directors for Mismanagement and/or Failure to Manage the HOA as Mandated by Statute
El Dorado County, CA
Although the complaint does not use the language “enforcement of the CC&Rs” or identify what sections of the CC&Rs Defendants violated, the causes of action specifically reference the Davis Sterling Act and CC §5975(c). More importantly, the Order Appointing Receiver ordered the Receiver to perform the acts requested by Plaintiffs in the complaint, and the Order ties those acts to enforcement of specific sections of the CC&Rs. See Motion, Dec. of B.
Other
Intellectual Property
H. Jay Ford
Los Angeles County, CA
Defendants Singletary and Davis obtained a reversal on appeal from an order issued by Judge Latting, which denied recovery of statutory attorneys’ fees under the Davis-Sterling Act. The remittitur issued March 23, 2020. Issuance of the remittitur effectuates the transfer of jurisdiction from the appellate court to the trial court and also (Snukal v. Flighways Manufacturing, Inc. (2000) 23 Cal.4th 754, 774, fn. 5.)
Riverside County, CA
Here, RMCA has shown that Church’s violation of the Communication Restrictions provision of the Settlement Agreement puts RMCA at risk of violating the Davis-Sterling Act. Therefore, Plaintiff has shown that Church’s continuing to violate the Communication Restriction provision would harm RMCA.
Orange County, CA
Plaintiff Mark Padreddii declares in opposition: he owns property in and is a member of the Gold Country HOA and has personal knowledge of the matters stated in the declarations; the action was brought against defendants, who are with one exception former Board members of the HOA, because they violated the HOA governing documents and their violations of the Davis-Sterling Act; the HOA C,C,&Rs are quite specific in that the HOA exists for the purpose of maintaining a road; the C,C,&Rs limit the collection and
El Dorado County, CA
Because Plaintiff has not filed an opposition, there is no basis to find that Plaintiff’s rights to discover the information overcomes any privacy or confidentiality interest of the Board members and/or is not violative of the Davis-Sterling Act.
Los Angeles County, CA
Zuraswki further argues that the "Community Guidelines" are unenforceable against him because, under the Davis-Sterling Act, which became effective in 2012 and the pertinent portion of which is codified at Civil Code § 4740(a) and read as follows: [a]n owner of a separate interest in a common interest development shall not be subject to a provision in a governing document or an amendment to a governing document that prohibits the rental or leasing of any of the separate interests in that common interest development
Contract
Contract - Other
San Diego County, CA
Cross-Complainant adds to her declaratory relief prayer, requesting “Declaratory relief for disputed issues relating to the association’s obligations under the Davis Sterling Act and the Rosenthal Act.” She still does not define an actual controversy for the Court to make a declaration of rights/duties, nor can she (arguably) given that these claims are barred by the statute of limitations. (See also Code Civ. Proc., § 1060.)
Orange County, CA
On July 9, 2019, plaintiff Welk Resort Group, Inc. filed a second amended complaint asserting causes of action for breach of written contract (CC&Rs), breach of statutory duty (Davis Sterling Act), breach of statutory duty (Vacation Ownership Timeshare Act), breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, breach of fiduciary duty, fraud (concealment), fraud (intentional misrepresentation), negligent misrepresentation, and violation of unfair competition law.
Contract
Breach
San Diego County, CA
HOA Proposed Class Notice Statement Regarding Unnamed Class Member Personal Liability for Attorney Fees and Costs if the HOA Prevails Defendant HOA’s proposed class notice includes the following warning: “The Plaintiff brings this lawsuit under Civil Code section 5975, which is part of the Davis-Sterling Common Interest Development Act, and which provides for the prevailing party in an action to enforce the CC&Rs to recover attorneys’ fees and costs from the non-prevailing party.
El Dorado County, CA
Paragraph 28 indicates it was Hollie Mallers, and Paragraph 92 indicates that Hollman was Plaintiffs' real estate agent, but does not indicate when. 6th cause of action for violation of Davis-Sterling Act. Sustain. In §§ 101 and 107, Plaintiff cites California Civil Code sections 1365.2, 1355, 1363.05, and 1365 as the statutes violated under the Davis-Stirling Act, but these statutes have all been repealed and are no longer operative. So, it is unclear what statutes this claim is being made under.
Real Property
other
Ventura County, CA
Paragraph 28 indicates it was Hollie Mallers, and Paragraph 92 indicates that Hollman was Plaintiffs' real estate agent, but does not indicate when. 6th cause of action for violation of Davis-Sterling Act. Sustain. In §§ 101 and 107, Plaintiff cites California Civil Code sections 1365.2, 1355, 1363.05, and 1365 as the statutes violated under the Davis-Stirling Act, but these statutes have all been repealed and are no longer operative. So, it is unclear what statutes this claim is being made under.
Real Property
other
Ventura County, CA
Zuraswki further argues that the "Community Guidelines" are unenforceable against him because, under the Davis-Sterling Act, which became effective in 2012 and the pertinent portion of which is codified at Civil Code § 4740(a) and read as follows: [a]n owner of a separate interest in a common interest development shall not be subject to a provision in a governing document or an amendment to a governing document that prohibits the rental or leasing of any of the separate interests in that common interest development
Contract
Contract - Other
San Diego County, CA
Zuraswki further argues that the "Community Guidelines" are unenforceable against him because, under the Davis-Sterling Act, which became effective in 2012 and the pertinent portion of which is codified at Civil Code § 4740(a) and read as follows: [a]n owner of a separate interest in a common interest development shall not be subject to a provision in a governing document or an amendment to a governing document that prohibits the rental or leasing of any of the separate interests in that common interest development
Contract
Contract - Other
San Diego County, CA
Zuraswki further argues that the "Community Guidelines" are unenforceable against him because, under the Davis-Sterling Act, which became effective in 2012 and the pertinent portion of which is codified at Civil Code § 4740(a) and read as follows: [a]n owner of a separate interest in a common interest development shall not be subject to a provision in a governing document or an amendment to a governing document that prohibits the rental or leasing of any of the separate interests in that common interest development
Contract
Contract - Other
San Diego County, CA
Zuraswki further argues that the "Community Guidelines" are unenforceable against him because, under the Davis-Sterling Act, which became effective in 2012 and the pertinent portion of which is codified at Civil Code § 4740(a) and read as follows: [a]n owner of a separate interest in a common interest development shall not be subject to a provision in a governing document or an amendment to a governing document that prohibits the rental or leasing of any of the separate interests in that common interest development
Contract
Contract - Other
San Diego County, CA
Zuraswki further argues that the "Community Guidelines" are unenforceable against him because, under the Davis-Sterling Act, which became effective in 2012 and the pertinent portion of which is codified at Civil Code § 4740(a) and read as follows: [a]n owner of a separate interest in a common interest development shall not be subject to a provision in a governing document or an amendment to a governing document that prohibits the rental or leasing of any of the separate interests in that common interest development
Contract
Contract - Other
San Diego County, CA
Zuraswki further argues that the "Community Guidelines" are unenforceable against him because, under the Davis-Sterling Act, which became effective in 2012 and the pertinent portion of which is codified at Civil Code § 4740(a) and read as follows: [a]n owner of a separate interest in a common interest development shall not be subject to a provision in a governing document or an amendment to a governing document that prohibits the rental or leasing of any of the separate interests in that common interest development
Contract
Contract - Other
San Diego County, CA
Zuraswki further argues that the "Community Guidelines" are unenforceable against him because, under the Davis-Sterling Act, which became effective in 2012 and the pertinent portion of which is codified at Civil Code § 4740(a) and read as follows: [a]n owner of a separate interest in a common interest development shall not be subject to a provision in a governing document or an amendment to a governing document that prohibits the rental or leasing of any of the separate interests in that common interest development
Contract
Contract - Other
San Diego County, CA
Zuraswki further argues that the "Community Guidelines" are unenforceable against him because, under the Davis-Sterling Act, which became effective in 2012 and the pertinent portion of which is codified at Civil Code § 4740(a) and read as follows: [a]n owner of a separate interest in a common interest development shall not be subject to a provision in a governing document or an amendment to a governing document that prohibits the rental or leasing of any of the separate interests in that common interest development
Contract
Contract - Other
San Diego County, CA
Zuraswki further argues that the "Community Guidelines" are unenforceable against him because, under the Davis-Sterling Act, which became effective in 2012 and the pertinent portion of which is codified at Civil Code § 4740(a) and read as follows: [a]n owner of a separate interest in a common interest development shall not be subject to a provision in a governing document or an amendment to a governing document that prohibits the rental or leasing of any of the separate interests in that common interest development
Contract
Contract - Other
San Diego County, CA
Zuraswki further argues that the "Community Guidelines" are unenforceable against him because, under the Davis-Sterling Act, which became effective in 2012 and the pertinent portion of which is codified at Civil Code § 4740(a) and read as follows: [a]n owner of a separate interest in a common interest development shall not be subject to a provision in a governing document or an amendment to a governing document that prohibits the rental or leasing of any of the separate interests in that common interest development
Contract
Contract - Other
San Diego County, CA
Zuraswki further argues that the "Community Guidelines" are unenforceable against him because, under the Davis-Sterling Act, which became effective in 2012 and the pertinent portion of which is codified at Civil Code § 4740(a) and read as follows: [a]n owner of a separate interest in a common interest development shall not be subject to a provision in a governing document or an amendment to a governing document that prohibits the rental or leasing of any of the separate interests in that common interest development
Contract
Contract - Other
San Diego County, CA
Please wait a moment while we load this page.
