Judge: Christian R. Gullon, Case: 24PSCP00258, Date: 2024-08-05 Tentative Ruling

The Court may change tentative rulings at any time. Therefore, attorneys are advised to check this website to determine if any changes or updates have been made to the tentative ruling.

Counsel may submit on the tentative rulings by calling the clerk in Dept. O at 909-802-1126 before 8:30 the morning of the hearing. Submission on the tentative does not bind the court to adopt the tentative ruling at the hearing should the opposing party appear and convince the court of further modification during oral argument.

The Tentative Ruling is not an invitation, nor an opportunity, to file any further documents relative to the hearing in question. No such filing will be considered by the Court in the absence of permission first obtained following ex-parte application therefore.

Case Number: 24PSCP00258    Hearing Date: August 5, 2024    Dept: O

Tentative Ruling

VERIFIED PETITION FOR RELIEF FROM SUPERMAJORITY VOTING REQUIREMENTS TO AMEND THE DECLARATION OF COVENANTS AND RESTRICTION is GRANTED.

Background

On June 3, 2024, Petitioner MONTECITO MAINTENANCE CORPORATION, a California nonprofit benefit corporation filed its petition for an order reducing the percentage of affirmative votes necessary to amend its covenants, conditions and restrictions (CC&Rs) pursuant to Civil Code Section 4275.

On June 4, 2024, Petitioner filed its brief regarding the petition.

On June 11, 2024, the court granted Petitioner's Ex Parte Application for Order Setting Matter for Hearing and Specifying Notice and Filing Requirements.

On July 11, 2024, Petitioner filed a ‘DECLARATION OF HEATHER PANEK REGARDING NOTICE PROVIDED TO MEMBERS.’

Legal Standard

The petition is governed by Civil Code section 4275. The statute provides, in pertinent part, that if a declaration for a residential common interest development requires more than 50% of the votes in the association in a single-class voting structure, the association may petition the superior court of the county in which the development is located for an order reducing the percentage necessary for an amendment. The petition, amongst other requirements, must contain “a short explanation of the reason for the amendment.” (Civ. Code §4275(c)(4).) Upon filing of the petition, the court may grant the petition if, amongst other mandatory requirements, “[t]he amendment is reasonable” and “[a] reasonably diligent effort was made to permit all eligible members to vote.” (Id. at (b)(3-4).)

Discussion

The petition complies with all the statute’s requirements. (See Petition pp. 3-5.) Of import, regarding diligent efforts to permit all eligible voters to vote on the proposed amendment, a meeting to tabulate votes was first noticed for June 14, 2023, and secret ballots were mailed to the members at least 30 days prior to that date. The meeting was continued five times to December 6, 2023 to give members additional time to submit ballots; additional notices were mailed to the membership to encourage the return of ballots. (Verified Petition ¶9.) At the time the voting was conducted, all members were eligible to vote. Of the 68 members eligible to vote, 39 voted in favor of the Proposed Amendments (57%), 9 voted against the Proposed Amendments (13%), and the remainder (of 20) failed to cast a vote. (¶10.) Accordingly, the association is short of the requisite approval of 67% of its members. As for why the Amendments are necessary, Petition states that they are “reasonable in that they will simplify the Declaration, when possible, and removes outdated provisions originally incorporated by the Declarant almost 28 years ago, The Proposed Amendments will also be in compliance with the latest revisions to the California Civil Code.” (¶13.)

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, as there are no defects with the Petition, the Petition is granted.