List of Documents for the Governance of Stoneybrook Villas Owners Association

Stoneybrook Villas Owners Association is not responsible for content or links

CC&R's | Bylaws | Rules 

CC&R's means Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions recorded as the Association's authority to hold title to and operate the property and improvements owned by the Association and its members and to which each member has agreed to abide as a condition of ownership of their unit.

Articles means the Articles of Incorporation which describe the purpose of the Association in order to become a legal entity recognized by and incorporated in the State of California.

Bylaws means the document that sets forth the corporate powers of the Association, its Directors, Officers and its members, augmenting the CC&Rs and Articles of Incorporation.

Rules are created and adopted by the Board to augment the other governing documents to regulate the behavior of the residents of Stoneybrook for the well being of the community.

Policies mean those procedures established by the Board of Directors as guidance to management for the various specified functions to be carried out in the day to day operations of the Association.

Laws mean the Federal, State and local statutes and case law bearing on the Association and its governance.

Policies

Asset Protection Policies set forth the procedures to be followed by management in order to protect the assets of the Association.

Employee Manual sets forth the policies to be followed by management and employees of the Association as fair employment practices.

Policy and Procedures for Collection of Delinquent Assessments, Fees, Charges and Costs describes for management and the members procedures for collection of delinquent accounts.

Violation and Fine Policy describes for management and the members the policy for fines for violation of the governing documents of the Association.

Water Intrusion Policy describes for management and the members the procedures to be followed in case of water intrusion from a unit into the common area and/or into another unit.

Case Law

The following are informal citations of some court cases affecting common interest developments.  These were cited in the CAI Seminar October 25, 2007 on Law and Order and were presented by Kenneth C. Jones of Hollins-Schecter, attorneys at law, and represent notes taken by Don Appleby at that seminar, so accuracy is questionable.  Use only after consultation with an attorney.

Beehan v. Lido Isle – Business judgment rule – association in court and court asks did association consider the facts, rely on experts. This is first case where court said will not make association liable.  They don’t want to take the board’s job.  Association won.

Cohen v. Kite Hill – can’t act capriciously. Must act in accordance with its own governing documents. Must reconcile interests of individual owners. Stan Feldcott had Cohen.

Ironwood v. Solomon – some owners got palm trees, some didn’t, and association violated its own rule. Unclean hands.

Posey v. Leavitt – Extension of balcony over common area. Issue was whether association can give away common area.

Ruoff v. Harbor Creek Community Association. – 300+ unit project, owner carrying groceries up open staircase, had $1-million in medical bills. Association only had $1-million in insurance coverage. Plaintiff sued individual owners and won. Caused 1365.9 that prevents suits against individual owners.

Francis T. v. Village Green – In Los Angeles 92-buildings in grassy golf course. Lighting was poor. Plaintiff complained to Board and board didn’t do anything. She installed own lights and Board forced her to remove the lights by cutting power.  She was subsequently raped. Liability to renters, duty of care, directors liable too if participated willfully. Business judgment rule ignored. Esthetics over personal safety.

 Nahrstedt v. Lakeside Village – 300+ Culver City project – cat owner. We have a new standard of care hereafter. Burden used to be on Association that rule was reasonable. Nahrstedt turned that around. Homeowner now has that burden. Presumed reasonable unless rule is arbitrary. Burden on land what its going to take to enforce provision. Is there some public reason why provision should be unreasonable? Cats like wine, women and song. Other judges, rules prohibited all.   Provision prohibiting cats, held reasonable, did not impose burden on land. Burden is on owner to prove rule is unreasonable.

Chantilles v. Lake Forest II Master – Records had to be redacted in order for director to see them.

Park Place HOA v. Naber – Owners don’t have off-set from assessments for claims against association

Ward v. Superior Court ( Beverly Homes Assn) – Notice of violation caused him to post bond to refinance. Can’t record notice of violation even if in CC&R’s. This was not on Govt. Code’s list of recordable documents.

Liebler v. Point Loma Tennis Club – Assn. wanted to keep non-resident owners from using common areas. Requires a rule to that effect.

Lamden v. LaJolla Shores – Involves deferential review standard. Assn. can decide how to treat termite treatments. Spot treatments done, not fumigation. Court used (not an incorporated assn.) duly constituted board in good faith exercises discretion court should defer to association. Assn. found experts saying spot treatment okay.

Dolan-King v. Rancho Santa Fe Assn. – Arch. Guidelines not recorded and presumed reasonable. Just a reasonableness test. No presumption available then.

Golden Gateway Center v. Golden Gateway Tennis Assn. – Can’t distribute flyers on private property.

Villa de Las Palmas Homeowners Assn. v. Terifaj – Veterinarian, rule against dogs, 30-50 unit assn. costs staggering, ruled in favor of assn. Amended CC&R’s. Court says includes amended CC&R’s. Is reasonable.

Moran v. Oso Valley Greenbelt Assn. – Access to records (minutes) Homeowner incurred $58,000 in costs to get documents. Came down in 2004.

O’Toole Company v. Los Angeles Kingsbury Court Owners Assn – Court ordered judgment determined to require a special assessment and required assn to levy special assessment.

Woodbridge Escondido Property Owners Association v. Nielsen – Architectural Deck case approved by Committee.  Later found was a violation of CC&R’s. Required encroaching deck to be removed. They had no authority to approve it.

Later cases added from OC View magazine

Berryman v. Merit Property Management, Inc. - (Management company won) Management companies are logically not prohibited from setting their own prices and making a reasonable profit for transfer of title and other documents during the course of escrow. Civil Code section 1368 does not limit the amount a homeowners association's management company can charge for providing such services. [Nov/Dec 2007]

Later case added from Common Ground magazine May June 2008

Heiman v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board - (Management company and the association lost) The property manager and the contractor were 'dual employers' for the purposes of workers' compensation and the court also concluded that the association had liability as well because California law requires independent contractors to be licensed and in this case the contractor was not licensed.

Return to Top