Judge: Linda S. Marks, Case: 2021-01229370, Date: 2022-12-19 Tentative Ruling
Motion for Summary Judgment and/or Adjudication filed by Pinecrest Community Association on 8/1/22
Plaintiff Pinecrest Community Association’s (the “Association”) has filed a unopposed Motion for Summary Judgment Against Defendants Scott Shimane and Linda Shimane.
The party moving for summary judgment bears the burden of persuasion that there is no triable issue of material fact and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 849-850).
A Plaintiff has met the burden of showing there is no defense to a cause of action if that party has proved each element of the cause of action entitling the party to judgment on that cause of action. Once the Plaintiff has met that burden, the burden shifts to the Defendant to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to that cause of action or a defense thereto. (CCP §437c(p)(1)).
Pursuant to CCP §437c(f)(1), a party may move for summary adjudication as to one or more causes of action within an action, one or more affirmative defenses, one or more claims for damages or one or more issues of duty. (CCP §437c(f)(1)). “A motion for summary adjudication shall be granted only if it completely disposes of a cause of action, an affirmative defense, a claim for damages, or an issue of duty.” (Id.).
Breach of Covenant
The First Cause of Action is for “Breach of Covenant,” wherein the Association seeks to enforce the Governing Documents, including its Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions and Reservation of Easements for Pinecrest recorded on or about May 15, 1986 (“CC&Rs”) and its Fines and Penalties Policy (“Fines Policy”).
Pursuant to Civ. Code §5975 (CC&Rs are enforceable equitable servitudes that bind all owners and may be enforced by the association) and Civ. Code §5980 (association has standing to institute litigation in matters pertaining to the enforcement of the governing documents), Plaintiff’s claim of breach of the CC&Rs and other Governing Documents is properly brought.
Article IX, Section 9.10 of the CC&Rs, entitled “Maintenance Obligations of Owners,” states, in relevant part: It shall be the duty of each Owner, at his sole cost and expense, subject to the provisions of this Declaration requiring ARC approval, to maintain, repair, replace and restore all Improvements located on his Lot and the Lot itself in a neat, sanitary and attractive condition. If any Owner shall permit any Improvement, the maintenance of which is the responsibility of such Owner, to fall into disrepair or to become unsafe, unsightly or unattractive, or to otherwise violate this Declaration, the Board shall have the right to seek any remedies at law or in equity which it may have. (UMF 11).
Article X, Section 10.07 of the CC&Rs, entitled “Trash,” states, in relevant part: No rubbish, trash or garbage or other waste material shall be kept or permitted upon any Lot, the Common Area or on any public street abutting or visible from the Properties, except in sanitary containers located in appropriate areas screened and concealed from view, and no odor shall be permitted to arise therefrom so as to render the Properties, or any portion thereof, unsanitary, unsightly, offensive or detrimental to any other property in the vicinity thereof or to its occupants. Such containers shall be exposed to the view of neighboring Lots only when set out for a reasonable period of time (not to exceed twelve (12) hours before and after scheduled trash collection hours). (UMF 13).
Here, Plaintiff has met its burden in demonstrating that Defendants breached the CC&Rs in the following ways:
• The Subject Property’s entire lot, specifically the backyard area, contains excessive rubbish, trash, and garbage which creates an unsightly view for other members of the Association. (UMF 27-28).
• The Subject Property contains excessive and overgrown weeds, non-landscaped sections, and bare dirt. (UMF 29).
• The Subject Property’s wood fence requires maintenance and painting. (UMF 30).
• The Subject Property’s exterior paint is faded and peeling. (UMF 31).
• The Subject Property’s exterior paint colors do not match, and different sections of the Subject Property are painted different colors. (UMF 32).
• The Subject Property’s wrought iron fence needs to be repainted and reinstalled. (UMF 33).
• The Subject Property is missing a chimney cap that conceals the spark arrestor. (UMF 34).
• The Subject Property needs repairs and/or replacement of the fascia boards and other wood sections. (UMF 35).
Plaintiff has also provided evidence that Defendants have not brought the Subject Property into compliance with the CC&Rs. (UMF 36).
Plaintiff asks the court for a judgment in the amount of $6,615 in unpaid fines and for injunctive relief.
Plaintiff has met its burden of demonstrating that Defendants owe $6,615 in unpaid fines pursuant to the Fines Policy. (UMF 17-22; 37-45).
As to injunctive relief, “[a] permanent injunction is a determination on the merits that a plaintiff has prevailed on a cause of action against a defendant and that equitable relief is appropriate.” (Thompson v. 10,000 RV Sales, Inc. (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 950).
With respect to the enforcement of covenants, the court in Morgan v. Veach (1943) 59 Cal.App.2d 682, 690–691 sets forth the following:
In Walker v. Haslett, (1919) 44 Cal.App. 394 [186 P. 622], it was said at page 398: “When clearly expressed, covenants of this description will be strictly enforced, and a court of equity will decree an injunction, and this without any showing of actual damage or substantial injury. ... He [owner] has the right to define the injury for himself, and also for his grantees of the remaining lots. ... He, or any subsequent owner ... may enforce the covenant when it is broken, and is not to be defeated by the opinion of any number of persons that the breach occasions no substantial injury.” It was said in Joyce v. Krupp, (1927) 83 Cal.App. 391 [257 P. 124], at the bottom of page 398: “Where equitable relief is sought, proof of actual or substantial injury is not essential, the establishment of a violation of a uniform building restriction being all that is necessary to entitle a complaining owner to relief. ...” “The propriety of affording equitable relief by injunction rests in the sound discretion of the trial court to be exercised according to the circumstances and exigencies of each particular case.” (Diederichsen v. Sutch, (1941) 47 Cal.App.2d 646, 649 [118 P.2d 863].)
Here, an injunction requiring Defendants to remedy the above breaches is appropriate.
Tentative Ruling: Plaintiff’s unopposed motion for summary adjudication of the first cause of action against Defendants Scott Shimane and Linda Shimane is GRANTED.
Declaratory Relief
As to the second cause of action for declaratory relief, the court will exercise its discretion to decline to make a binding declaration. (See CCP §1061 [“The court may refuse to exercise the power granted by this chapter in any case where its declaration or determination is not necessary or proper at the time under all the circumstances.”].)
Plaintiff’s declaratory relief claim does not relate to a separate and distinct wrongful act. Each of Plaintiff’s causes of action arise from the same operative facts and are intertwined with one another. Thus, declaratory relief is unnecessary and superfluous. (See Hood v. Superior Court (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 319, 323-324).
Further, Plaintiff has not clearly indicated what, specifically, it asks the court to declare. The request for “Declaratory Relief to prospectively enforce its rights and obligations against Defendants under the CC&Rs” is not a proper request. (Memo. at 12:9-11).
Tentative Ruling: Plaintiff’s unopposed motion for summary adjudication of the second cause of action against Defendants Scott Shimane and Linda Shimane is DENIED.
Plaintiff’s requests for judicial notice of Exhibits A through D are GRANTED pursuant to Evidence Code §452(d).
Plaintiff’s counsel is to give notice.