Artus v. Gramercy Towers Condo. Ass'n
19 Cal. App. 5th 923
| Cal. Ct. App. 5th | 2018Background
- Gramercy Towers HOA proposed and held a July 2014 vote to eliminate cumulative (cumulative voting) in favor of direct voting; the board sent a two‑page unsigned letter with ballots urging a "Yes" vote and posted elevator notices. A large majority approved the change.
- Unit owner Artus (owns three units; former board member) sued under the Davis‑Stirling Act alleging, among other things, unequal access to association media (Civ. Code §5105(a)(1)) and improper use of association funds for campaign purposes (Civ. Code §5135(a)); she obtained a preliminary injunction halting implementation.
- The HOA held a second election (Feb. 2015) after the injunction; Artus did not object and the same result occurred by a large margin; subsequent board elections proceeded and Artus lost her seat.
- After a three‑day bench trial, the trial court found Artus had not proven violations of §§5105(a)(1) or 5135(a) regarding the second election and denied permanent injunctive and declaratory relief, concluding the second election remedied any defects and the HOA acted in good faith.
- The trial court ruled the HOA the prevailing party and denied Artus statutory attorney fees under Civ. Code §5145; Artus appealed both the denial of declaratory relief and the denial of interim statutory fees.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed: it upheld denial of declaratory relief (no probable future controversy warranting prospective relief given the remedial second election and trial court findings) and rejected Artus’s claim to interim fees under the Monterossa rationale, finding §5145’s text and history do not authorize fees for mere interim success.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether declaratory relief under Code Civ. Proc. §1060 was required despite mootness concerns after a remedial second election | Artus: proving statutory violations of §5105 and §5135 entitled her to declaratory relief to prevent future violations | HOA: the second election cured any defects; no live controversy remains; relief is moot and equitable discretion supports denial | Court: Denied; no actual, probable future controversy shown and trial court did not abuse discretion in denying declaratory relief |
| Whether the trial court erred in ruling no violation of §5105(a)(1) (equal access to association media) | Artus: board communications and postings denied equal access and advantaged board’s position | HOA: Artus did not request access for the first election; for the second election HOA granted her access; no statutory violation proved | Court: Affirmed trial court’s factual finding that Artus failed to prove §5105 violation |
| Whether the trial court erred in ruling no violation of §5135(a) (use of association funds for campaign purposes) | Artus: the board’s two‑page letter enclosed with ballots was campaign material funded by the association | HOA: letter was explanatory and not within statutory meaning of "campaign purposes" | Court: Affirmed trial court’s conclusion the letter did not fall within §5135(a) as proven at trial (trial court’s factual conclusion supported) |
| Whether Artus is entitled to interim statutory attorney fees/costs under Civ. Code §5145 because she obtained a preliminary injunction (Monterossa argument) | Artus: Monterossa supports awarding fees for interim success where statute authorizes injunctive relief | HOA: §5145 and its legislative history do not evidence intent to award fees for interim victories; prevailing‑party rules apply | Court: Denied fees; distinguished Monterossa (unique statutory scheme) and held §5145 follows ordinary prevailing‑party rules; fees awarded at litigation conclusion |
Key Cases Cited
- Monterossa v. Superior Court, 237 Cal.App.4th 747 (explaining when a statute expressly contemplates interim injunctive relief, legislative intent may authorize fee awards for preliminary relief)
- Environmental Defense Project of Sierra County v. County of Sierra, 158 Cal.App.4th 877 (ripeness/actual controversy analysis for declaratory relief)
- California Alliance for Utility etc. Education v. City of San Diego, 56 Cal.App.4th 1024 (continuing violations and declaratory relief where defendant’s conduct will likely continue)
- Steinberg v. Chiang, 223 Cal.App.4th 338 (two‑prong declaratory relief inquiry: ripeness as law, remedy as discretion)
- Wilson & Wilson v. City Council of Redwood City, 191 Cal.App.4th 1559 (distinguishing ripeness and mootness in public‑law declaratory relief context)
- Connerly v. Schwarzenegger, 146 Cal.App.4th 739 (case or controversy requirement for injunctive and declaratory relief)
- DisputeSuite, LLC v. Scoreinc.com, 2 Cal.5th 968 (general rule: prevailing party and fee awards assessed at litigation conclusion)