citing Mission Shores, supra, 166 Cal.App.4th 789; Fourth La Costa Condominium
Owners Assn. v. Seith (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 563, 570.) The trial court is not required
to make any particular findings when considering such a petition; instead, it is sufficient
4
if the record shows that the court considered the requisite factors in making its ruling.
(Quail Lakes Owners Assn., supra, 204 Cal.App.4th at p. 1140.)
The court may grant the petition if it finds all of the following: “‘Notice was
properly given; the balloting was properly conducted; reasonable efforts were made to
permit eligible members to vote; “[o]wners having more than 50 percent of the
votes . . . voted in favor of the amendment”; and “[t]he amendment is reasonable.”’”
(Quail Lakes Owners Assn. v. Kozina, supra, 204 Cal.App.4th at p. 1135, quoting Peak
Investments v. South Peak Homeowners Assn., Inc. (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 1363, 1366–
1367; see also Civ. Code, § 4275, subd. (c).)
The Alliance does not complain that the evidence presented to the trial court fails
to satisfy the above-described elements of subdivision (c) of Civil Code section 4275, nor
does it claim the amendment would be improper for any of the reasons set forth in Civil
Code section 4275, subdivision (e). Instead, the Alliance argues that voter apathy is an
element of Civil Code section 4275, and that relief is not proper unless voter apathy has
been established.
After reviewing the decisions on which Alliance relies for the assertion that voter
apathy is an element of a Civil Code section 4275 petition, we conclude Alliance has
incorrectly construed statements made in dicta in some authorities regarding the purpose
of the statutory procedure. In Blue Lagoon Cmty. Ass’n v. Mitchell, the court stated,
“Viewed objectively, the purpose of [former] Civil Code section 1356 [now 4275] is to
give a property owners’ association the ability to amend its governing documents when,
5
because of voter apathy or other reasons, important amendments cannot be approved by
the normal procedures authorized by the declaration.” (Blue Lagoon Cmty. Ass’n v.
Mitchell, supra, 55 Cal.App.4th at p. 477; see also, Quail Lakes Owners Assn., supra,
204 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1134-1135.)
Similar statements of legislative purpose are found in Fourth La Costa
Condominium Owners Assn. v. Seith and Peak Investments v. South Peak Homeowners
Assn., Inc. However, none of the cases hold that voter apathy is an element that must be
alleged or proven. It is well settled that an appellate decision is not authority for
everything said in the opinion, but only for points actually involved and decided. (People
v. Knoller (2007) 41 Cal.4th 139, 154-155; Santisas v. Goodin (1998) 17 Cal.4th 599,
620, citing Childers v. Childers (1946) 74 Cal.App.2d 56, 61.)
The doctrine of precedent, or stare decisis, extends only to the ratio decidendi of a
decision, not to supplementary or explanatory comments which might be included in an
opinion. (People v. Superior Court (2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 892, 903, citing Gogri v. Jack
in the Box, Inc. (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 255, 272.) Only the ratio decidendi of an
appellate opinion has precedential effect. (Trope v. Katz (1995) 11 Cal.4th 274, 287.)
The decisions relied upon by the Alliance refer to a supposed legislative purpose, but
none of these authorities held that voter apathy is a requisite element of the statutory
procedure, nor do any of them require proof of voter apathy as a precondition to relief
from the supermajority provisions of the CCRs.
6
Looking at the statutory language of Civil Code section 4275, we observe five
elements required to be established to authorize a reduction in the required voting
percentage to amend a provision of the governing CCRs. Those elements require the trial
court to find that adequate notice was given; that balloting on the proposed amendment
was conducted in accordance with the governing documents as well as the provisions of
the Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act; a reasonably diligent effort was
made to permit all eligible members to vote on the proposed amendment; members
having more than 50 percent of the votes voted in favor of the amendment; the
amendment is reasonable; and granting the petition is not improper. (Civ. Code, § 4275,
subd. (c).) The statute does not include voter apathy among the list of elements that must
be established.
Applying the rules of statutory construction, in the absence of an ambiguity, the
plain meaning of the statute controls. (Tract 19051 Homeowners Assn. v. Kemp (2015)
60 Cal.4th 1135, 1143; Anderson Union High School Dist. v. Shasta Secondary Home
School (2016) 4 Cal.App.5th 262, 283.) Orchard was not required to plead and prove
voter apathy under the plain language of Civil Code section 4275, and we are not
empowered to insert what a legislative body has omitted from its enactments. (Williams
v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 337, 357; Wells Fargo Bank v. Superior Court (1991)
53 Cal.3d 1082, 1099.) We therefore decline to imply an element that was not expressed
by the Legislature.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting the petition.
7
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed. Respondent is entitled to costs on appeal.
RAMIREZ P. J.
We concur:
McKINSTER J.
FIELDS J.
8
Filed 2/22/19 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION COURT OF APPEAL -- STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH DISTRICT DIVISION TWO
ORDER
ORCHARD ESTATE HOMES, INC., E068064 Petitioner and Respondent,
v. (Super.Ct.No. PSC1700644) THE ORCHARD HOMEOWNER ALLIANCE, Objector and Appellant. ORDER CERTIFYING OPINION FOR PUBLICATION _______________________________________
THE COURT
Requests having been made to this court pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.1120(a), for publication of a nonpublished opinion heretofore filed in the above matter on January 29, 2019, and it appearing that the opinion meets the standards for publication as specified in California Rules of Court, rule 8.1105(c),
IT IS ORDERED that said opinion be certified for publication pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.1105(b). The opinion filed in this matter on January 29, 2019, is certified for publication.
CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION
RAMIREZ P. J.
We concur:
McKINSTER J.
FIELDS J.
9
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court held that voter apathy is not a required element that must be alleged or proven to obtain judicial authorization to reduce the percentage of affirmative votes needed to amend a homeowners association's governing documents under Civil Code section 4275.
Issues
Whether voter apathy is a mandatory element that must be proven to obtain relief under Civil Code section 4275.
Disposition. Affirmed
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“The statute does not include voter apathy among the list of elements that must be established.”
“Orchard was not required to plead and prove voter apathy under the plain language of Civil Code section 4275, and we are not empowered to insert what a legislative body has omitted from its enactments.”