How is an Associaton governed?

Useful Rulings on Association Governance

Recent Rulings on Association Governance

BRANDON VS. SUMMIT RIDGE COMMU

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.

  • Hearing

  • Judge

    Campins

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

SEANY RENFROW V. LARRY BUTTLER, ET AL.

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.

  • Hearing

BURNEY V. ERB

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

  • Hearing

RICARDO PRADO ET. AL. VS. DARIN STOYTCHEV ET. AL.

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.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

  • Judge

    H. Jay Ford

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

ALEXANDER VS SINGLETARY HEARING RE: MOTION TO/FOR RELIEF PURSUANT TO CCP 473(B); MEMO OF POINTS AND AUTH BY TATUM SINGLETARY, RICHARD DAVIS

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.)

  • Hearing

RANCHO MADRINA COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION VS. CHURCH

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.

  • Hearing

BURNLEY V ERB

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

  • Hearing

JOEL ROTHSCHILD ET AL VS THE DESMOND CONDOMINIUM HOMEOWNERS

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.

  • Hearing

ARROWOOD MASTER ASSOCIATION VS ZURAWSKI

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

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Contract - Other

FINISTERRA CONDOMINIUMS ASSOCIATION, INC. VS. GARCIA

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.)

  • Hearing

WELK RESORT GROUP INC VS. AVIARA RESIDENCE CLUB OWNER'S ASSOCIATION

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.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

GETZ V. SERRANO EL DORADO OWNER’S ASSOC.

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.

  • Hearing

CAROLYN HARRIS VS. RICHARD HOLLOMAN

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.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

CAROLYN HARRIS VS. RICHARD HOLLOMAN

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.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

ARROWOOD MASTER ASSOCIATION VS ZURAWSKI

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

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Contract - Other

ARROWOOD MASTER ASSOCIATION VS ZURAWSKI

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

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Contract - Other

ARROWOOD MASTER ASSOCIATION VS ZURAWSKI

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

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Contract - Other

ARROWOOD MASTER ASSOCIATION VS ZURAWSKI

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

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Contract - Other

ARROWOOD MASTER ASSOCIATION VS ZURAWSKI

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

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Contract - Other

ARROWOOD MASTER ASSOCIATION VS ZURAWSKI

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

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Contract - Other

ARROWOOD MASTER ASSOCIATION VS ZURAWSKI

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

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Contract - Other

ARROWOOD MASTER ASSOCIATION VS ZURAWSKI

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

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Contract - Other

ARROWOOD MASTER ASSOCIATION VS ZURAWSKI

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

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Contract - Other

ARROWOOD MASTER ASSOCIATION VS ZURAWSKI

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

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Contract - Other

ARROWOOD MASTER ASSOCIATION VS ZURAWSKI

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

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Contract - Other

1 2 3     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we load this page.