Haghnazarzadeh v. Suntree Townhomes Owners' Assn. CA2/2, B313046

Background

Plaintiff sued Suntree HOA claiming an easement across the HOA common area was being obstructed; plaintiff recorded a lis pendens and later prepared-but-did-not-serve Doe amendments naming individual unit owners.
Suntree filed a verified second amended cross-complaint alleging it acted as authorized representative of its members under Civ. Code § 382 and the CC&Rs and that it owned/maintained the common areas.
The parties mediated; Suntree sent board member Ciro Barilla, who signed a written stipulation settling the case; plaintiff filed a notice of settlement and the trial court dismissed the action pursuant to the stipulation.
About 18 months later Suntree moved under Code Civ. Proc. § 473(d) to vacate the dismissal, claiming the settlement was void because Barilla lacked authority and because the HOA’s 129 individual homeowners were indispensable parties who had not approved or signed.
The trial court denied the motion, finding Barilla had ostensible authority, Suntree ratified the settlement by its post‑settlement conduct, and the individual homeowners were not indispensable; this appeal followed and the Court of Appeal affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Timeliness of § 473(d) motion to vacate	Suntree’s attack relies on extrinsic evidence and thus was required within six months; motion was untimely	The dismissal is void and may be set aside despite delay	Motion untimely: alleged invalidity required extrinsic proof, so § 473(b) deadline applied and Suntree missed it
Whether Barilla had authority to settle	Barilla had ostensible authority based on counsel’s written assurances that a board member with full authority would attend and by signing the stipulation	Barilla lacked actual authority; only full board/homeowners could approve	Barilla had ostensible authority; plaintiff reasonably relied on HOA counsel’s assurances and Barilla’s presence/signature
Whether Suntree ratified the settlement	Suntree ratified by silence and conduct: did not object to the notice of settlement, participated in follow-up negotiations, and accepted post‑settlement benefits	Suntree denies ratification and asserts prior notice that any agreement required board/homeowner approval	Court found ratification by conduct and delay in objecting demonstrated adoption of the settlement
Whether individual homeowners were indispensable parties (and whether § 664.6 signatures required)	The HOA was the authorized representative under pleading and CC&Rs; homeowners were not indispensable and were not parties to be signed under § 664.6	Individual homeowners were indispensable and their consent/signatures were required to bind them	Homeowners were not indispensable here; Ranch at the Falls was distinguishable and Gauss/§ 664.6 did not bar enforcement because homeowners were not litigants and the HOA represented them

Key Cases Cited

Pittman v. Beck Park Apartments Ltd., 20 Cal.App.5th 1009 (standard of review for § 473(d) motions and distinction between orders void on the face of the record and those requiring extrinsic evidence)
Taylor v. Roseville Toyota, Inc., 138 Cal.App.4th 994 (exposition of ostensible authority and its elements)
Estate of Stephens, 28 Cal.4th 665 (definition of ratification)
Behniwal v. Mix, 133 Cal.App.4th 1027 (ratification may be implied by principal’s conduct)
Sierra Palms Homeowners Assn. v. Metro Gold Line Foothill Extension Construction Authority, 19 Cal.App.5th 1127 (individual homeowners not required as parties for suits concerning common areas)
Ranch at the Falls LLC v. O'Neal, 38 Cal.App.5th 155 (distinguished — homeowners were indispensable in a quiet title context)
Gauss v. GAF Corp., 103 Cal.App.4th 1110 (§ 664.6 enforcement requires settlements to meet statutory safeguards; addressed mass‑settlement signature issues)
Levy v. Superior Court, 10 Cal.4th 578 (clarifies that § 664.6 refers literally to the parties — the litigants themselves)