Sands v. Walnut Gardens Condo. Ass'n Inc.
247 Cal. Rptr. 3d 21
| Cal. Ct. App. 5th | 2019Background
- Plaintiffs Monique Sands and her parents owned a unit in the Walnut Gardens condominium; a roof pipe broke and water flooded their bedroom.
- The Walnut Gardens Condominium Association (the HOA) was responsible for maintaining common areas, including the roof and piping; the HOA’s agent hired contractors to repair the pipe and roof after the leak.
- Plaintiffs sued the HOA and its property manager for breach of contract (based on the CC&Rs obligating the HOA to keep the project in "first class condition") and negligence.
- The trial court heard the Sandses’ case-in-chief (two witnesses), then granted the HOA’s oral nonsuit motion; the Sandses settled with the property manager and appealed the nonsuit as to the HOA.
- On review, the appellate court views facts in the plaintiffs’ favor; it concluded the contract nonsuit was erroneous but affirmed the nonsuit on the negligence claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether HOA breached its contractual duties under the CC&Rs by failing to maintain roof/pipes | CC&Rs required HOA to keep project in "first class condition"; total lack of preventive maintenance breached that promise | No evidence of breach or notice; plaintiffs failed to prove HOA knew repairs were needed | Reversed as to contract: reasonable jurors could find total failure to maintain breached the CC&Rs; expert testimony not required |
| Whether plaintiffs needed expert evidence to prove breach of contract causation | Expert unnecessary; visible lack of maintenance sufficed for jury to find breach and causation | Plaintiffs’ lack of expert testimony meant jury would speculate about how pipe broke and roof leaked | Court rejected the necessity of expert testimony for contract claim; nonsuit on this ground erred |
| Whether plaintiffs could maintain a tort (negligence) claim independent of contract | Plaintiffs argued duties overlapped and arise from CC&Rs; sought recovery in tort for same facts | HOA contended no independent tort duty outside the CC&Rs; negligence claim merely re-cast contract obligations as tort | Affirmed: no independent tort duty existed; negligence claim barred where duties derive from private contract/CC&Rs |
| Whether appellate court could affirm on grounds not raised in nonsuit motion | Plaintiffs argued trial court’s additional reasoning was improper | HOA’s nonsuit motion was limited; appellate relief limited to grounds raised unless defect was incurable | Court limited consideration to grounds in the nonsuit motion; reversed only on the contract ground properly presented |
Key Cases Cited
- O'Neil v. Crane Co., 53 Cal.4th 335 (appellate review of nonsuit views facts in plaintiff's favor)
- Lawless v. Calaway, 24 Cal.2d 81 (defects not specified in nonsuit motion generally cannot be relied on on appeal unless incurable)
- Pinnacle Museum Tower Assn. v. Pinnacle Market Development (US), LLC, 55 Cal.4th 223 (CC&Rs can constitute a contract between HOA and owners)
- Lamden v. La Jolla Shores Clubdominium Homeowners Assn., 21 Cal.4th 249 (deference and rules for owner suits against HOAs)
- Erlich v. Menezes, 21 Cal.4th 543 (limits on converting contract breaches into tort claims)