Lee v. Castelluccio CA3

California Court of Appeal Oct 2, 2013 No. C068987Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The trial court did not err in entering judgment enforcing a settlement agreement containing provisions regarding board terms and governance, as the appellant failed to demonstrate that these provisions violated the Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act, the Corporations Code, or public policy.

Issues

Whether the settlement agreement's provisions regarding board terms and governance violate the Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act.
Whether the settlement agreement's provision regarding board terms violates Corporations Code section 7220, subdivision (a).
Whether the challenged provisions of the settlement agreement are unenforceable as a matter of public policy.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“We conclude the trial court did not err in including the challenged provisions in the judgment.”

“Lee has failed in his burden on appeal to show that provisions 1d., 1g. and 1h. violate the Act.”

“Lee has not established that striking the challenged provisions would further public policy; instead, the record indicates that his unilateral request would thwart the policy favoring settlement agreements.”

Filed 10/2/13 Lee v. Castelluccio CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Calaveras) ----

DON H. LEE,

Plaintiff and Appellant, C068987

v. (Super. Ct. Nos. 10CV36874, 10CV37043 & 10CV37048) CHRIS CASTELLUCCIO et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

Two competing factions of a homeowners association filed three lawsuits (which were later consolidated) seeking control of the Gold Strike Heights residential subdivision. The “Weiner Parties” (individuals and entities affiliated with Mark Weiner, who acquired majority control of the association) and the “Homeowners” (individuals owning lots not owned by the Weiner Parties) participated in mediation and signed a written settlement agreement.

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 [judgment by stipulation], the trial court entered an order for judgment, dismissed all three lawsuits, and included in the judgment all material terms of the agreement. Appellant Don H. Lee, one of the Weiner Parties, signed the agreement. The next day, however, he asked the trial court to strike three provisions in the agreement before entering judgment: provision 1d. [establishing the term of the current board and officers], 1g. [voiding prior amendments and modifications to the bylaws and covenants, conditions and restrictions (CC&R’s)], and 1h. [requiring amendments to articles, bylaws and CC&R’s to require a supermajority vote for three years]. The trial court denied Lee’s motion. Lee now contends (1) the challenged provisions violate the portions of the Davis- Stirling Common Interest Development Act (the Act)1 (Civ. Code, § 1350 et seq.) requiring secret elections and an independent third party counting the ballots; (2) provision 1d. violates a portion of the Corporations Code governing the terms of board members; and (3) the challenged provisions violate public policy.2 We conclude the trial court did not err in including the challenged provisions in the judgment. We will affirm the judgment. BACKGROUND Gold Strike Heights is a residential subdivision in Calaveras County. The subdivision’s developer recorded a declaration of restrictions (CC&R’s) in 2002,

Lee v. Castelluccio CA3

AI Brief

DON H. LEE,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

MAURO , J.

BUTZ , J.

AI Brief