Couple sues their HOA claiming discrimination and the board’s failure to abide by the CC&Rs.
Plaintiff owns a unit in a 5-unit condominium building. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants improperly imposed an assessment against her unit in the amount of $18,000 for “repair costs caused by demolition work in your unit.” Defendants are the owners of the damaged unit and they are also members of the HOA board. Plaintiff claims this HOA “assessment” was a damage award that Defendants imposed against Plaintiff in violation of the By-Laws in that it was made under the guise of an assessment.
Plaintiff claims that his HOA and its individual board members have failed to perform their duties and comply with the CC&Rs. Plaintiff alleges that the HOA has not performed appropriate repairs, failed to properly conduct meetings and spent funds in violation of the CC&Rs on improper expenditures.
Plaintiff was a board member of the HOA. Plaintiff resided in a unit held in the name of his wife as trustee of a trust. The unit was held as her sole and separate property. When the other board members discovered Plaintiff was not an owner of the subject unit, they removed him from the board. Ownership of a unit is required to serve as a board member of the HOA. The remaining members of the board issued a letter informing other homeowners of Plaintiff’s removal without identifying him by name. The letter set forth the specific facts surrounding Plaintiff’s removal and the legal grounds for doing so under the CC&Rs and the By-laws. The letter was prepared by counsel for the HOA. Plaintiff filed an action against the individual board members and the attorney claiming that the letter was defamatory in that he was falsely accused of fraudulently misrepresenting his status as a homeowner.
Plaintiffs own and occupy a common interest development consisting of a four-story building. Defendants are the HOA and the individual members of the HOA. Plaintiffs allege that their unit was flooded three times when Defendants failed to install an adequate drainage system for the building. Defendants also allegedly failed to maintain adequate insurance to cover Plaintiffs’ damages. Finally, at various times before the members of the HOA, Defendants humiliated Plaintiffs by falsely accusing them of embezzling monies and asking for an unreasonable amount of damages in connection with the flooding.
Plaintiff has owned a condo unit in the development for many years. She alleges that she and other elderly and disabled residents repeatedly complained to the Defendant HOA about the weight and pressure of the front door to the building. Plaintiff contends that she attempted to hold open the front door while retrieving her paper. Due to the door’s weight and the pressure required to open it, Plaintiff lost her balance and fell, breaking her right femur. Plaintiff filed this action seeking damages for the injuries she has suffered due to the Defendants’ failure to remedy the weight of the door.
Plaintiff is an HOA and Defendant is a unit owner. Defendant has allegedly breached the CC&Rs by installing hardwood flooring without the consent of the HOA. Plaintiff filed this action seeking to enjoin Defendant from proceeding with installation of hardwood floors in his unit.
Plaintiff purchased a condo unit and Defendant is the HOA. Plaintiff’s unit began experiencing water intrusion and Defendant HOA attempted to repair the roof to resolve the problem, but all attempts failed. Defendant HOA then attempted to levy a special assessment on the condo owners to replace the roof. Plaintiff refused to pay the special assessment on grounds that it was improperly levied under the CC&Rs.
HOA sues to foreclosure on liens to enforce non-payment of HOA Special Assessments.
Petitioner HOA seeks a court order pursuant to CC Section 1356 permitting them to pass amended CC&Rs by less than the required 75% under the CC&Rs. The CC&Rs currently in place were adopted prior to adoption of the Davis Stirling Act. The HOA desired an Amendment of the CC&Rs to incorporate and reflect the new law. 73% of Petitioner’s total membership voted in favor of passing the amendments. The passage was short by one vote and this is possibly attributable to the fact that two of the units in the building are in foreclosure or bank owned. Petitioner asks that the Court approve the amendment based on the vote.
Petitioner’s interests in two condos were sold pursuant to a foreclosure sale by the HOA. The foreclosure sale was prompted by Petitioner’s failure to pay HOA assessments. Respondent purchased the property at the foreclosure sale. Petitioner is now seeking to redeem his interest in the sold property pursuant to CCP Section 729.060. Petitioner filed this petition for court determination of the amount required to redeem Petitioner’s interest.
Homeowner challenges the decisions of the HOA Board who contend they are protected by the Business Judgment Rule.
Petitioner seeks an order allowing passage of restated by-laws at a reduced percentage under the current by-laws. Current by-laws require passage by 2/3 of the voting members, which would be 158 “yes” votes of the 237 members. Petitioner submitted the restated by-laws for a vote and 138 members voted for restatement, 38 members voted against it and 2 were deemed invalid. Only 178 members out of the 237 voting members cast ballots. Petitioner argues the restatement is necessary to comply with the Davis-Stirling Act. Petitioner contends the necessary vote cannot be obtained because of voter apathy.
Plaintiff HOA filed this action against the Defendants for malicious prosecution. Defendants had reported a leak in their condo unit and filed a complaint with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing, alleging that the HOA did not repair the Defendants’ unit because of their nationality, ethnicity and religion. The Fair Housing complaint was dismissed. Plaintiff maintains the Defendants knew they had no grounds to file the complaint, because any claims were covered by a prior settlement between the parties.
Plaintiff (tenant), a famous convicted felon, leased a condo unit from the other Plaintiff (landlord). After the lease was executed, Defendant HOA passed an amendment to the CC&Rs prohibiting any owner from leasing or selling a unit to a convicted felon. Despite this amendment, the lease was renewed. In response, Defendant HOA imposed monetary penalties against the landlord and revoked all of the tenant’s common area privileges. Plaintiffs filed a complaint alleging breach of fiduciary duty, violation of Unruh Civil Rights Act, intentional interference with contractual relationship and declaratory relief.