Anders v. Superior Court
192 Cal. App. 4th 579
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Senate Bill No. 800 (Civil Code §§ 895–945.51) creates a nonadversarial prelitigation process for home defects, with possible builder alternatives.
- Petitioners own 54 homes built by Real Party and filed a construction defects suit; Real Party moved to compel adherence to its contractual alternative procedures for those homes.
- Trial court limitedly denied enforceability of Real Party’s contract procedures, but ordered compliance with statutory prelitigation procedures for all purchasers.
- Real Party asserted three groups: original purchasers (28 homes), successors (24 homes), and SB800 purchasers (2 homes)—each with different election mechanics under § 914(a).
- Section 914(a) permits a builder to elect its own alternative procedures, binding at sale, and prohibits requiring adherence to statutory procedures if the builder’s election is in place, regardless of enforceability.
- Court interpreted § 914(a) to preclude the statutory procedures if the builder elected its own procedures, and held this applies even if the alternative is unenforceable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does § 914(a) foreclose statutory prelitigation procedures when a builder elects alternative procedures? | Real Party: election binds and bars SB800 procedures. | Petitioners: can still proceed under SB800 if alternatives fail or unenforceable. | Yes; builder’s election bars statutory procedures. |
| Is the builder’s election to use its own procedures binding even if unenforceable? | Real Party: binding regardless of enforceability. | Petitioners: election should be considered void if unenforceable. | Yes; the election is binding regardless of enforceability. |
| Do SB800 purchasers fall under the same § 914(a) regime as original/subsequent purchasers? | Real Party intended uniform application across purchasers. | Petitioners: SB800 purchasers are governed by statutory procedures. | For SB800 purchasers, no error in ordering adherence; their status is not undermined. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hassan v. Mercy American River Hospital, 31 Cal.4th 709 (2003) (statutory interpretation and intent)
- Lungren v. Deukmejian, 45 Cal.3d 727 (1988) (statutory construction principles)
- Mejia v. Reed, 31 Cal.4th 657 (2003) (when to rely on legislative history)
- Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc. v. Helliker, 138 Cal.App.4th 1135 (2006) (statutory construction de novo standard)
- Gikas v. Zolin, 6 Cal.4th 841 (1993) (policy deference when Legislature sets policy)
- Jones v. Lodge at Torrey Pines Partnership, 42 Cal.4th 1158 (2008) (legislative history and statutory interpretation context)