Quail Lakes Owners Assn. v. Campbell CA3

Filed 1/27/21 Quail Lakes Owners Assn. v. Campbell CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (San Joaquin) ----

QUAIL LAKES OWNERS ASSOCIATION, C087279

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. STKCVURP20140006486) v.

ROCHELLE CAMPBELL, as Successor Trustee, etc.,

Defendant and Appellant.

The Quail Lakes Owners Association (Quail Lakes) brought suit in 2014 against Rochelle Campbell, as successor trustee for the Anne G. Knieriemen Revocable Trust, seeking to enforce provisions in a Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs). Quail Lakes alleged that the trust owned certain real property in Stockton subject to the CC&Rs and that over time, assessments on the property had become delinquent. The complaint asserted causes of action for breach of restrictive covenants, nuisance, injunctive relief, and judicial foreclosure. Following a court trial, the trial court entered judgment in favor of Quail Lakes. Self-represented on appeal as the sole-beneficiary of the trust, Campbell now purports to assert 26 different assignments of error under separate headings in the argument section of her opening brief. However, self-represented litigants are required to

1

follow the rules of appellate procedure. (Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1229, 1247.) Here, each of Campbell’s assignments of error in her argument consists of a conclusory statement without the required analysis. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(1)(B), (C).) As a result, we need not address her unsupported arguments. (People v. Oates (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1048, 1068, fn. 10; American Corporate Security, Inc. v. Su (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 38, 44, fn. 3; Imagistics Internat., Inc. v. Department of General Services (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 581, 591, fn. 8; Jones v. Superior Court (1994) 26 Cal.App.4th 92, 99.) To the extent Campbell provides some discussion in the other portions of her opening brief, we have identified five primary contentions. We understand Campbell to be claiming (1) the Quail Lakes action is barred by applicable statutes of limitation, (2) there was a denial of due process, (3) substantial evidence does not support the trial court’s findings, (4) Quail Lakes violated Civil Code section 5725,1 and (5) the requirements for alternative dispute resolution were not satisfied. Finding no merit in these contentions, we will affirm the judgment. BACKGROUND