243 Cal. App. 4th 274
Cal. Ct. App.2015Background
- Brookfield built a Newport Coast condominium development; HOA sued Brookfield for construction/plumbing defects in 2012.
- Movants are individual unit owners and HOA members who sought to intervene in the HOA litigation.
- Movants claimed the proposed settlement would impair their individual and common-area interests and that the HOA no longer adequately protected them.
- HOA's settlement would use reserve funds and potentially release Movants’ individual unit claims as part of the overall settlement.
- Trial court denied Movants’ motion to intervene as untimely, using the filing date (7/13/12) as the timeliness trigger.
- Appellate court reversed, holding timeliness should be based on when Movants knew or should have known their interests were not adequately represented, and remanded for factual findings on that date.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| What is the correct starting point for timeliness to intervene under § 387? | Movants: use when interests no longer adequately represented by HOA. | HOA: timeliness from date complaint filed; interests not adequately represented later. | Timeliness must be measured from when interests were no longer adequately represented. |
| Did the court correctly analyze adequacy of representation by HOA? | Movants contended HOA no longer adequately represented interests. | HOA argued continued representation via CC&Rs; Movants’ remedy elsewhere. | Remand to determine adequacy of representation and consider intervention on merits. |
| Should the court grant mandatory, permissive intervention, or both if timely? | Movants seek either or both to protect their interests. | HOA contends representation and settlement issues do not warrant intervention. | If timely, court must decide on mandatory and/or permissive intervention with appropriate findings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hodge v. Kirkpatrick Development, Inc., 130 Cal.App.4th 540 (Cal. App. 2005) (interprets timeliness of intervention under California statute as aligned with federal rule 24)
- Chamness v. Bowen, 722 F.3d 1110 (9th Cir. 2013) (timeliness focuses on when interests cease to be protected, not when suit filed)
- Officers for Justice v. Civil Service Com., 934 F.2d 1092 (9th Cir. 1991) (timeliness measured by when intervener learns risk to rights)
- Legal Aid Society of Alameda Co. v. Dunlop, 618 F.2d 48 (9th Cir. 1980) (relevant circumstances are when intervener’s rights may be affected)
- Truck Ins. Exchange v. Superior Court, 60 Cal.App.4th 342 (Cal. App. 1997) (factors for permissive intervention)