191 Cal. App. 4th 255
Cal. Ct. App.2010Background
- Planned development in Los Angeles subject to CC&R’s restricting view obstruction and running with the land until Jan 1, 1999.
- Amendment titled Extension of Declaration extended CC&R duration to Jan 1, 2009, signed by 43 of 68 lot owners including Schuman and Edmunds.
- Ignatin planned a new house on lot 53, triggering neighbor concerns about CC&R compliance and view protection.
- Ignatin challenged the Amendment in August 2008 after trial proceedings had begun, arguing the Amendment was invalid and did not extend the CC&R’s.
- Trial court found the CC&R’s expired and dismissed cross-complaints as moot, prompting appeals by Schuman, Edmunds, and Ignatin.
- Judgment nunc pro tunc issued; appellate remand ordered to address all issues except the validity challenge which the court held time-barred.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Ignatin’s challenge to the Amendment is time-barred | Ignatin argues Amendment invalid and not properly extended CC&R’s. | Costa Serena bars challenges brought after four years. | Yes; challenge barred by four-year statute of limitations. |
| Does Costa Serena conflict with Taormina | Taormina should apply; amendments not conformed may be voidable, not void ab initio. | Costa Serena is consistent; Taormina does not control voidable vs void ab initio in this context. | Costa Serena does not conflict with Taormina. |
| Did Schuman and Edmunds waive limitations defense by failure to plead | Waiver due to pleading deficiency should apply. | Defense raised via later supplement; not required to plead in cross-complaint. | No waiver; limitations defense properly raised. |
| Is Ignatin’s challenge an affirmative relief action subject to statute of limitations | Defense seeking favorable construction of cross-claims may be affirmative relief. | Challenge acted as defense and thus barred by limitations. | Challenge treated as affirmative relief, barred by statute of limitations. |
Key Cases Cited
- Costa Serena Owners Coalition v. Costa Serena Architectural Com., 175 Cal.App.4th 1175 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) (challenge to amendments voidable, not void ab initio; four-year limitations apply to voidable amendments)
- Taormina Theosophical Community, Inc. v. Silver, 140 Cal.App.3d 964 (Cal. Ct. App. 1983) (amendments not following declaration procedures may be voidable or void; context-based)
- Peyton v. Cly, 184 Cal.App.2d 193 (Cal. Ct. App. 1960) (voidable vs void ab initio distinction in contract amendments)
- Jordache Enterprises, Inc. v. Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison, 18 Cal.4th 739 (Cal. 1998) (statutes of repose and timely assertion of defenses)
- Hermosa Beach Land & Water Co. v. Law Credit Co., 175 Cal. 493 (Cal. 1917) (defenses that assert affirmative relief may be barred by limitations)
- Strong v. Strong, 22 Cal.2d 540 (Cal. 1943) (defendant’s ownership assertion as defense governed by statutes of limitations)