Harvey v. the Landing Homeowners Assn.
162 Cal. App. 4th 809, 76 Cal. Rptr. 3d 41 (2008)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Courts will apply a rule of judicial deference to a homeowners association board's discretionary decisions, including its interpretation of the governing CC&R's, so long as the board acts upon reasonable investigation, in good faith, and with regard for the best interests of the community association and its members.
Facts:
- The Landing is a 92-unit condominium complex where each of the 23 fourth-floor units has an adjacent attic space designated as common area, accessible only from within that unit.
- For over 15 years, several fourth-floor homeowners used this adjacent attic space for storage.
- In 2002, after a homeowner complaint, The Landing Homeowners Association (LHA) Board discovered 18 fourth-floor owners were using the attic space.
- The Board investigated the issue, consulting with the City of Coronado to ensure compliance with building codes and with its insurance broker to confirm coverage was not jeopardized.
- Relying on a provision in the CC&R's allowing it to grant exclusive use of 'nominal' common areas, the Board passed resolutions permitting fourth-floor homeowners to use up to 120 square feet of the attic space for rough storage under specific conditions.
- E. Miles Harvey, a homeowner and former LHA board president, disagreed with the Board's decision, believing it violated the CC&R's.
- The LHA membership later approved a rule change codifying the Board's storage policy by a 56-to-7 vote.
Procedural Posture:
- E. Miles Harvey filed a lawsuit in the trial court against The Landing Homeowners Association (LHA), its board members, and certain residents.
- The complaint alleged causes of action for trespass, breach of fiduciary duty, and sought injunctive relief.
- The defendants moved for summary judgment on all claims.
- The trial court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, finding the LHA Board acted within its authority and discretion.
- Harvey (appellant) appealed the trial court's judgment to the Court of Appeal.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a homeowners association board act within the scope of its authority under the CC&R's and its fiduciary duties when it grants certain homeowners exclusive use of an adjacent, otherwise inaccessible common area attic space for storage, which the board determines to be 'nominal in area'?
Opinions:
Majority - Benke, J.
Yes. A homeowners association board acts within its authority when it makes such a grant, provided its decision is a reasonable exercise of the discretion granted to it under the CC&R's. The court applied the 'rule of judicial deference' established in Lamden v. La Jolla Shores Clubdominion Homeowners Assn. This rule dictates that courts should defer to a board's authority and presumed expertise when it, upon reasonable investigation and in good faith, exercises discretion within the scope of its authority. Here, the CC&R's did not create a blanket prohibition on storage but expressly gave the Board discretion to designate storage areas and to allow exclusive use of 'nominal' common areas. The Board's extensive investigation—including consulting with the City and its insurance broker, holding workshops, and requiring permission forms and liability insurance—demonstrated a reasonable, good-faith exercise of its discretion. Furthermore, the court found no invalidating conflict of interest for board members who were fourth-floor residents, as the transaction was proven to be 'just and reasonable' to the corporation and was also approved by a disinterested majority of the Board.
Analysis:
This case solidifies and extends the 'rule of judicial deference' from Lamden, applying it beyond ordinary maintenance decisions to a board's interpretation and application of its own governing documents. It reinforces the business judgment rule for homeowners association boards, granting them significant latitude in making discretionary decisions as long as they follow a reasonable and good-faith process. This precedent serves to discourage lawsuits by individual homeowners who disagree with a board's reasonable, well-investigated discretionary actions. It establishes that a board's determination of what constitutes a 'nominal' use of common area is entitled to deference if supported by a sound decision-making process.
Unlock the full brief for Harvey v. the Landing Homeowners Assn.