Colyear v. Rolling Hills Community Assn. etc.
B270396M
| Cal. Ct. App. | Mar 23, 2017Background
- Yu Ping Liu (homeowner) filed a "Application for Assistance to Restore View" with the Rolling Hills HOA under Resolution 220 asking the HOA to address trees obstructing his view; the application identified the Krauthamers' property and included photos but did not name Colyear.
- Richard Colyear (neighbor and HOA member) received notice and sued Liu, the HOA, and board members seeking writs, declaratory relief, quiet title, injunctive relief, and damages, alleging some trees in the application were on his lot and that the HOA process improperly asserted an encumbrance on lots not subject to Declaration 150.
- Liu withdrew the HOA application about a month after it was filed; the HOA never issued a decision and no enforcement action proceeded.
- Liu moved to strike under the anti‑SLAPP statute (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16), arguing his HOA application was protected petitioning/speech in connection with a matter of public interest and that Colyear lacked a probability of prevailing.
- The trial court granted Liu’s anti‑SLAPP motion; the Court of Appeal affirmed, holding (1) Liu’s application was protected under § 425.16(e)(4) as connected to an HOA governance issue of public interest and (2) Colyear failed to show a probability of success (quiet title claim mooted by withdrawal of the application).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Liu's HOA application is protected activity under § 425.16(e)(4) as an "issue of public interest" | Colyear: this was a private neighbor dispute affecting only Liu and the Krauthamers, not a public issue | Liu: the application invoked HOA processes central to an ongoing communitywide dispute over applicability/enforcement of tree‑trimming covenants | Held: Protected — HOA process and covenant applicability were an ongoing controversy affecting a definable community, so the application fit § 425.16(e)(4) |
| Whether Colyear's claims "arise from" Liu's protected conduct (first prong causation) | Colyear: the suit seeks resolution of the broader legal question (applicability of Declaration 150), not merely redress for Liu's application; application was only a trigger | Liu: the gravamen of Colyear's claims is that Liu's application invoked an invalid HOA process and thereby clouded title — so claims arise from the application | Held: Claims arose from Liu's petitioning act; the application was the injury‑producing conduct underpinning the complaint |
| Whether Colyear demonstrated a probability of prevailing on his claims (second prong) | Colyear: evidence (photos, declarations) shows two trees were on his lot and Liu asserted an adverse claim, supporting quiet title and other relief | Liu: he withdrew the application before any HOA action; no adverse claim remained and relief against Liu was moot | Held: No probability of success — quiet title claim was mooted by withdrawal; Colyear could not show minimal merit against Liu |
Key Cases Cited
- Simpson Strong–Tie Co., Inc. v. Gore, 49 Cal.4th 12 (broad construction of anti‑SLAPP statute)
- Soukup v. Law Offices of Herbert Hafif, 39 Cal.4th 260 (court accepts plaintiff's evidence as true when evaluating second prong)
- Baral v. Schnitt, 1 Cal.5th 376 (plaintiff must show probability of prevailing on claims based on protected activity)
- City of Cotati v. Cashman, 29 Cal.4th 69 (protected activity must be the basis of the plaintiff's claim)
- Ruiz v. Harbor View Community Assn., 134 Cal.App.4th 1456 (HOA governance disputes can be matters of public interest)
Disposition: Affirmed the trial court's order granting Liu's anti‑SLAPP motion; Liu awarded costs on appeal.