Tesoro Del Valle Master Homeowners Ass'n v. Griffin
200 Cal. App. 4th 619
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Tesoro del Valle is a nonprofit HOA with CC&Rs and Design Guidelines governing improvements and architectural review.
- Article 7 and section 7.2 require ACC approval for property improvements; section 8 imposes slope and drainage restrictions.
- In 2007-2008, Griffin spouses attempted to install a solar energy system, initially proposing slope-mounted panels adjacent to the residence.
- The ACC denied the initial application for not meeting requirements; denial was misaddressed and received by Griffs after 46 days.
- Griffs proceeded with installation despite notices to stop; Tesoro sued for breach of CC&Rs and related relief; jury sided with Tesoro.
- Trial court entered judgment ordering removal of slope panels and restoration of landscaping; this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Tesoro’s compliance with Civil Code § 714 was a jury issue. | Tesoro’s compliance facts were for the jury. | Compliance should be decided as a matter of law. | Issue for jury; substantial evidence supports. |
| Whether CC&Rs impose reasonable solar restrictions. | Restrictions are reasonable under § 714 and guidelines. | Restrictions are overly burdensome and not reasonable. | CC&Rs reasonably restrict solar installations; supported by substantial evidence. |
| Whether Tesoro properly brought the action without a full membership vote. | Board authority via CC&Rs allowed suit without full vote. | A full membership vote was required. | Tesoro complied with CC&Rs; proper to proceed without full vote. |
| Whether Tesoro’s denial and notice procedures complied with the governing documents. | Procedures were substantially followed; any defects were harmless. | Notice and rationale for denial were defective/untimely. | Substantial compliance; adequate explanation and appeal rights conveyed. |
| Whether Tesoro’s right to trial by jury was properly honored despite jury-fee issues. | Jury trial warranted; waiver timely but nonprejudicial. | Jury waiver should have barred trial without proper fees. | Court did not abuse discretion; trial by jury properly allowed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Palos Verdes Homes Ass'n v. Rodman, 182 Cal.App.3d 324 (Cal. App. 1986) (reasonableness of HOA design restrictions is a factual question)
- Ayres v. City Council of Los Angeles, 34 Cal.2d 31 (Cal. 1949) (reasonableness of restrictions depends on facts)
- Shumate v. Johnson Publishing Co., 139 Cal.App.2d 121 (Cal. App. 1956) (consent to jury submission of issues binds on appeal)
- In re Marriage of Fonstein, 17 Cal.3d 738 (Cal. 1976) (extrinsic contract interpretation informed by substantial evidence)
- Robinson v. City and County of San Francisco, 41 Cal.App.3d 334 (Cal. App. 1974) (reasonableness of acts is triable where facts allow differing inferences)
- Palos Verdes Homes Ass'n v. Rodman, 182 Cal.App.3d 324 (Cal. App. 1986) (design guidelines; reasonableness of restrictions)
- Grafton Partners v. Superior Court, 36 Cal.4th 944 (Cal. 2005) (waiver and trial rights analysis in jury trials)
- Johnson-Stovall v. Superior Court, 17 Cal.App.4th 808 (Cal. App. 1993) (waiver of jury trial and prejudice concerns)
- Mizel v. City of Santa Monica, 93 Cal.App.4th 1059 (Cal. App. 2001) (relevance and scope of rebuttal expert testimony)
- Rosen v. E. C. Losch Co., 234 Cal.App.2d 324 (Cal. App. 1965) (practical construction of contracts as evidence of intent)