Judge: Elaine W. Mandel, Case: 23SMCV02981, Date: 2023-10-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23SMCV02981    Hearing Date: March 29, 2024    Dept: P

Tentative Ruling

Crestwood Hill Association v. Broumand et al., Case No. 23SMCV02981

Hearing date: March 29, 2024

Broumand Defendants’ Demurrer to First Amended Complaint (FAC)

Plaintiff Crestwood Hills Association alleges the Broumand defendants’ construction violates architectural standards in the Crestwood Hills community. Defendants Broumand demur to the first cause of action on the ground that it has not been sufficiently pleaded and to the second cause of action on the ground that plaintiff Association lacks legal capacity to sue for declaratory relief.

Defendants argue the first cause of action for breach of declaration of restrictions is subject to demurrer because the restriction on building a home pursuant to Paragraph 6 of the 1950 CC&Rs expired January 1, 1976. See Demurrer at pg. 7; FAC at ¶18, Exh. 1 at ¶ 6.  They note the FAC alleges no other breach, and the 1976 CC&R did not extend the time set forth in Paragraph 6 of the 1950 CC&Rs but created a new restriction that began January 1, 1976. 

The Broumands are requesting the court conduct an analysis of the 1950 CC&Rs and the 1976 CC&Rs. Such request is impermissible on demurrer, which may only be sustained where the pleading is defective on its face. Donabedian v. Mercury Ins. Co. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 968, 994. As alleged, when the amendment to the CC&Rs was signed on December 16, 1975, the majority of homeowners agreed to extend the authority of the Architectural Committee, and as a result, Paragraph 6 of the 1950 CC&Rs remains in effect. FAC at ¶ 7. Because the Broumands have not shown there are any defects on the face of the pleadings or via judicial notice that contradict this allegation, the demurrer to the first cause of action is OVERRULED.

Second, the Broumands argue the Association lacks legal capacity to sue for declaratory relief on behalf of the Architectural Committee. This argument has been raised previously, and the court held that the Association, as successor-in-interest to the original developer, has power to enforce the CC&Rs and any valid rules issued by the Architectural Committee. See 11/30/23 Minute Order and 12/15/23 Minute Order. The court adheres to its prior reasoning. As alleged, the Association seeks a declaration that the decision by the Architectural Committee denying the Broumands’ building plans was within its authority under the CC&Rs. FAC ¶¶ 23-25. Thus, because the Association is seeking to enforce a decision made by the Architectural Committee, the Association is permitted to maintain its declaratory relief cause of action. The demurrer is OVERRULED.

Defendants to answer within 10 court days.