Friars Village Homeowners Assn. v. Hansing CA4/1 (2013) · DecisionDepot
Friars Village Homeowners Assn. v. Hansing CA4/1
California Court of Appeal Sep 20, 2013 No. D061360Unpublished
Before: Huffman
Filed 9/20/13 Friars Village Homeowners Assn. v. Hansing CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FRIARS VILLAGE HOMEOWNERS D061360 ASSOCIATION,
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 37-2010-00105362- v. CU-CO-CTL)
CHARLES I. HANSING,
Defendant and Appellant. _____________________________________
CHARLES I. HANSING,
Plaintiff and Appellant. (Super. Ct. No. 37-2010-00007105- v. SC-SC-CTL)
FRIARS VILLAGE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION,
Defendant and Respondent,
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, William R.
Nevitt, Jr., Judge. Affirmed.
Charles I. Hansing, in pro. per., for Plaintiff, Defendant and Appellant.
Community Legal Advisors Inc., Mark T. Guithues and Edward W. Burns, for
Plaintiff, Defendant and Respondent.
This appeal arises from a judgment issued after a bench trial in these two
consolidated cases, on a stipulated record, (1) granting declaratory relief at the request of
a homeowners association of a common interest development, that an election rule it
adopted is valid and enforceable; and (2) denying an owner's request in his small claims
case to challenge that rule as inconsistent with the development's governing documents.
Plaintiff, defendant and appellant Charles I. Hansing is an owner of two units,
together with his wife (not a party to this action), in the Friars Village common interest
development, and they reside in one unit and are members of its homeowners association
(Association), the plaintiff, defendant and respondent in this case. The development is
subject to the provisions of the Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act (the
Act), which establishes standards for governance of such associations. (Civ. Code,1
§ 1350 et seq.) The Association operates under amended articles of incorporation and
bylaws ("governing documents"), which specify that residents and members of the
Association in good standing may be nominated for or nominate themselves for office on
the board of directors (the Board).
Through its nine-member Board, the Association enacted an operating rule in the
rules for elections and voting, that prevents a person from seeking a position on the
1 All further statutory references are to the Civil Code unless otherwise indicated. 2
Board, if that prospective candidate is related by blood or marriage to any current Board
member, or to any current candidate for such office. (Rule 3.2.2(e) (the relationship
rule).)2
According to Hansing, the adoption of this relationship rule violates his right as a
homeowner to nominate himself to the Board, a right to self-nomination that is arguably
guaranteed by section 1363.03, subdivision (a)(3) of the Act (hereafter § 1363.03(a)(3)).
In toto, § 1363.03(a)(3) requires the Association to specify the qualifications for
candidates for the Board or other elected positions, and provides that such qualifications
must be consistent with the governing documents. Further, it provides that "[a]
nomination or election procedure shall not be deemed reasonable if it disallows any
member of the Association from nominating himself or herself to the board of directors."
(§ 1363.03(a)(3).)
Hansing also contends the relationship rule violates the provisions of section
1357.100 et seq., which establish standards for operating rules for associations.
"Operating rules" are regulations adopted by the Board that apply to the management and
operation of the development, or to the Association's business and affairs. (§ 1357.100.)
Operating rules are enforceable and valid only if they are "not inconsistent" with
governing law and the governing documents (here, amended articles of incorporation and
2 These parties refer to the relationship rule as the "anti-nepotism rule." Black's Law Dictionary (9th ed. 2009) at page 1138, column 2, defines nepotism as "bestowal of official favors on one's relatives, especially in hiring." Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary (11th ed. 2006) at page 831, column 2, defines nepotism as "favoritism (as in appointment to a job based on kinship)." We designate the contested rule simply as the relationship rule. 3
bylaws). (§ 1357.110, subd. (c).) Hansing argues the minimal standards set forth in the
Association's governing documents (residency and membership in the Association)
cannot properly be altered by an operating rule such as the relationship rule, so that the
Board exceeded its authority in enacting it. (§ 1357.110, subd. (b).)
On de novo review, we agree with the trial court that the Association's board was
authorized to enact the relationship rule, in light of the language of the governing
documents and the relevant statutes.
I
INTRODUCTION AND LITIGATION
Pursuant to its obligations under the governing documents, the Association's
Board enacted operating rules for the management and operation of the development, and
for the conduct of the business and affairs of the Association. (§ 1357.100, subd. (a).)
These include a set of rules for elections and voting, adopted in 2006. Section 3.0 et seq.
of these rules deals with the qualifications and nominations of directors and repeats the
requirement that a Board director shall be a member of the Association and resident of
the development, who is in good standing with respect to payment of assessments and
other obligations. Nominations for the Board may be made by a nominating committee,
from the floor at the annual meeting, or by self-nomination.
As relevant here, rule 3.2.2 was amended in 2009, to add the relationship rule as
its subdivision (e). Hansing's wife, also an Association member and resident, was then
serving as a member of the Board. In a letter dated September 3, 2010, Hansing
requested that the Board place his name on the slate for Board office, and he objected to
4
the relationship rule as setting a qualification which he believed to be illegal. The
Association's counsel responded that the Board had made a policy decision to enact the
rule, since the bylaws and CC&R's were silent on the issue, and that his request would be
refused.3
After Hansing was denied a place on the ballot, he sued the Association and some
of its personnel in small claims court for damages, which he proposed to use for
"properly revising and adopting an updated version of governing documents."
The Association responded in superior court with its complaint for declaratory and
injunctive relief and damages, requesting an order that Hansing refrain from challenging
the governing documents regarding the Board election, and abate his nuisance-like
conduct. The small claims court judge transferred that case to superior court.
Hansing answered the complaint and raised numerous contentions, including the
Association's alleged failure to abide by its own standards and procedures or to show that
they were fair and reasonable.
The trial court decided the matter upon a stipulated record, which included
documentary exhibits and the Association's declaration from its former Board president,
Matthew Boomhower, who was in office when the relationship rule was implemented.
He explained the reason for the relationship rule was to protect the Board from the
3 The development is subject to a declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions (CC&R's), which is not in the appellate record. At times, trial counsel for the Association seemed to use the term CC&R's as synonymous with the Association's amended articles of incorporation. We need only discuss the terms of the amended articles of incorporation and bylaws, and we granted Hansing's request to augment the record to include full copies of them. 5
possible wrongdoing of two Board members from the same household, and to prevent a
situation in which two members would constitute a substantial voting bloc within the
nine-member Board.
The court issued a judgment declaring the relationship rule was properly adopted,
is valid, and may be enforced. The court awarded no damages and ruled against Hansing
on his small claims action. No statement of decision was issued, since the request for one
was untimely. Hansing appeals.
II
GOVERNING LEGAL PRINCIPLES
A. Review
On appeal, Hansing bears the burden of overcoming the presumption that an
appealed judgment or order is correct. (Ekstrom v. Marquesa at Monarch Beach
Under section 1357.140, subdivision (b), a homeowner may challenge an adopted
rule by requesting a special membership meeting to dispute it, within 30 days of
notification of the rule change. Due to an admitted lack of any record on whether this
procedure was invoked or litigated here, we decline to apply any waiver principles from
it, as respondent's brief now suggests. (See Fourth La Costa, supra, 159 Cal.App.4th at
p. 585 [waiver rule].)
8
III
APPLICATION
A. Self-Nomination Claim
Under section 1363.03(a)(3), the Association shall adopt election rules, in
accordance with the procedures prescribed by section 1357.100 et seq., that do all of the
following: "Specify the qualifications for candidates for the board of directors and any
other elected position, and procedures for the nomination of candidates, consistent with
the governing documents. A nomination or election procedure shall not be deemed
reasonable if it disallows any member of the association from nominating himself or
herself for election to the board of directors." (Italics added.) The Association refers in
its brief on appeal to unspecified legislative history that suggests this italicized language
was mainly directed toward allowing qualified people to run for such office, even if the
existing leadership at a particular development did not think such a person was "good
enough" to serve. 4
Hansing wants to nominate himself to the Board and merely assumes he is
"qualified" to do so, consistent with the governing documents and any appropriate rules
4 Under section 1363.03, subdivision (n), if this section conflicts with the provisions of the Nonprofit Mutual Benefit Corporation Law (Corp. Code, § 7110 et seq., relating to elections), the provisions of this section in the Act shall prevail. No arguments are raised about any such conflict. Further, director eligibility requirements are discussed in a practice guide in this area, which suggests that Corporations Code section 7151, subdivision (c)(3) permits corporate bylaws to specify the qualifications of directors, and that such provisions are impliedly valid and may legitimately restrict the right to be a candidate for election to such a board. (Advising Cal. Common Interest Communities (Cont.Ed.Bar 2012) § 2.7, pp. 52-53.) 9
requirements, because he is a resident and Association member in good standing. He
claims any additional election restriction would be unreasonable, and since section
1363.03(a)(3) says some election procedures shall not be deemed reasonable if they
interfere with self-nomination, this too must be an unreasonable rule that is not valid or
enforceable. (See also § 1357.110, subd. (e) [an operating rule must be reasonable].)
Hansing's arguments and assumptions erroneously disregard the statutory language
of the same subdivision he is relying upon, which prior to the self-nomination provision,
allows and requires the Association to specify board candidate "qualifications."
(§ 1363.03(a)(3).) This right of self-nomination impliedly applies to a "qualified"
candidate.
By comparison to use regulations, an association's operating or election rules are
"reasonable" if they are " 'rationally related to the protection, preservation and proper
operation of the property and the purposes of the Association as set forth in its governing
instruments,' and [are] 'fair and nondiscriminatory.' " (Fourth La Costa, supra, 159
Cal.App.4th at p. 577; Sui, supra, 196 Cal.App.4th 933, 940.)
In this election context, the Association and its Board are not only required by
statute to specify Board qualifications (§ 1363.03(a)(3)), they are also given related duties
by the governing documents to protect the interests of the Association, and they must act
consistently with those dictates. Pursuant to the amended articles of incorporation, the
Association has the primary purposes of promoting and managing a safe and healthful
development and providing for the maintenance and preservation of the property. To
10
further its purposes, the Association is given powers and privileges ordinarily allowed a
corporation, to be managed by its Board.
Next, under the bylaws, the Board has certain enumerated powers and duties to
manage the affairs of the Association, including adopting and publishing rules and
regulations governing the use of the common area and facilities in the development, and
the personal conduct of the members and guests, not inconsistent with the governing
documents. The bylaws allow the Board to fill all vacancies until a successor is elected
by Association members. Qualifications of board members are not further described by
the bylaws.
The rationales for the basic requirements in the governing documents for Board
candidacy (residency and Association membership) are evidently to ensure that Board
members have the necessary interests and stakes in the outcome to carry out their duties
for the overall benefit of the development. The same is true of the operating rule
requirement that a board candidate may not have any outstanding debts for assessments
or penalties. (Advising Cal. Common Interest Communities, supra, § 2.7, pp. 52-53.)
Hansing does not acknowledge the underlying purposes of those basic requirements for
service as a Board member.
Pursuant to the duties and powers of the Board prescribed by the bylaws, and the
purposes of the Association stated in the articles, it is reasonable to interpret section
1363.03(a)(3) to allow the Board to enact an election rule specifying this qualification for
directors, in pursuit of its policy decision to minimize the chance that candidates for
office might have a potential conflict of interest, such as when married persons or related
11
persons seek to serve together on the Board and conduct its business, possibly in their
own favor. Such a qualification rule is consistent with the interests of the Association as
outlined in the governing documents. The provisions of section 1363.03(a)(3), regarding
self-nomination, grant no additional protections to an otherwise unqualified or
disqualified candidate.
B. Scope of Board's Authority to Enact Rules
"Operating rules" are regulations adopted by the Board that apply to the
management and operation of the development or to the business and affairs of the
Association. (§ 1357.100, subd. (a).) According to Hansing, the relationship rule was
enacted in excess of the Board's power, because it is inconsistent with law and the
governing documents.
Of the five provisions in section 1357.110 which set forth requirements for the
validity and enforceability of an operating rule, Hansing focuses mainly on subdivisions
(b) and (c) (and does not dispute that the rule is in writing, as subd. (a) requires). Under
section 1357.110, subdivision (b), an operating rule must be "within the authority of the
board of directors of the association conferred by law or by the [governing documents]."
Likewise, under section 1357.110, subdivision (c), an operating rule is enforceable and
valid only if it is "not inconsistent with governing law" and the governing documents.
Hansing also seems to argue that section 1357.110, subdivision (d) was violated
(i.e., that the rule was NOT adopted or amended "in good faith and in substantial
compliance with the requirements of this article"), and/or that section 1357.110,
subdivision (e) was not complied with (i.e., the rule is NOT reasonable). Overall, he
12
claims the relationship rule is invalid because it amounted to the Board's attempted
amendment of the governing documents, to further restrict them, whereas any such
amendment of the articles and the bylaws would have required membership approval by
the Association, not just Board approval. (See Rancho Santa Fe Association v. Dolan-
King (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 28, 37; MaJor v. Miraverde Homeowners Association
(1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 618, 627.)
In response, the Association says its Board can "augment" the provisions of the
governing documents, and it is not "inconsistent" to add this Board qualification, based
upon its assertedly legitimate policy reasons, such as the avoidance of spouses' or
relatives' potential conflicts of interest regarding Board business.
As we read this record, the relationship rule is "not inconsistent' with governing
law and the governing documents, in light of its asserted purpose and effect.
(§ 1357.110, subd. (c).) Nor, under section 1357.110, subdivision (b), does it exceed the
authority of the Board, as that is conferred by law or governing documents, to make rules
about candidacy for Board office that are intended to improve and are reasonably related
to the performance of the Board and will serve to protect its overall mission -- protecting
the best interests of the Association. Elections of Board directors are clearly important
elements of the business and affairs of the Association as a whole, and this relationship
rule passes the test of "reasonableness," as " 'rationally related to the protection,
preservation and proper operation of the property and the purposes of the Association as
set forth in its governing instruments,' [and] 'fair and nondiscriminatory.' " (Fourth La
Costa, supra, 159 Cal.App.4th at p. 577; Sui, supra, 196 Cal.App.4th 933, 940.)
13
Accordingly, the Board was granted the statutory power to adopt rules about the
management and operation of the development, and "the conduct of the business and
affairs of the association." (§ 1357.100, subd. (a).) The record supports a conclusion that
the relationship rule was a legitimate response to business concerns among Association
members that allowing a voting bloc on the Board would not be in the best interests of
the Association. The Board's policy decision to enact the relationship rule constitutes a
reasonable attempt to balance the respective interests, and is "consistent" with the nature
of the specific requirements in the governing documents and other rules, i.e., residency
and membership in good standing in the Association. Such requirements legitimately
promote the ability of the Board members to impartially conduct the business affairs of
the development. We agree with the trial court's conclusions of law that the relationship
rule is valid, enforceable and not inconsistent with the governing documents.
DISPOSITION
Affirmed. Costs are awarded to Respondent.
HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.
WE CONCUR:
NARES, J.
AARON, J.
14
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court held that a homeowners association board has the authority to enact an operating rule prohibiting relatives from serving simultaneously on the board of directors, as such a rule is reasonable, consistent with governing documents, and does not violate statutory self-nomination rights.
Issues
Whether an association's 'relationship rule' prohibiting relatives from serving on the board of directors is valid and enforceable.
Whether the 'relationship rule' violates the statutory right of a member to nominate themselves to the board of directors under Civil Code section 1363.03(a)(3).
Whether the board exceeded its authority by enacting an operating rule that adds qualifications for board candidacy not explicitly stated in the governing documents.
Disposition. Affirmed
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“On de novo review, we agree with the trial court that the Association's board was authorized to enact the relationship rule, in light of the language of the governing documents and the relevant statutes.”
“The provisions of section 1363.03(a)(3), regarding self-nomination, grant no additional protections to an otherwise unqualified or disqualified candidate.”
“We agree with the trial court's conclusions of law that the relationship rule is valid, enforceable and not inconsistent with the governing documents.”