Judge: Melvin D. Sandvig, Case: 24CHCP00366, Date: 2024-11-19 Tentative Ruling

Counsel wishing to submit on a tentative ruling may inform the clerk or courtroom assisant in North Valley Department F47, 9425 Penfield Ave., Chatsworth, CA 91311, at (818) 407-2247.  Please be aware that unless all parties submit, the matter will still be called for hearing and may be argued by any appearing/non-submitting parties. If the matter is submitted on the court's tentative ruling by all parties, counsel for moving party shall give notice of ruling. This may be done by incorporating verbatim the court's tentative ruling. The tentative ruling may be extracted verbatim by copying and specially pasting, as unformatted text, from the Los Angeles Superior Court’s website, http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org. All hearings on law and motion and other calendar matters are generally NOT transcribed by a court reporter unless one is provided by the party(ies).

Case Number: 24CHCP00366    Hearing Date: November 19, 2024    Dept: F47

Dept. F47

Date: 11/19/24

Case #24CHCP00366

PETITION FOR COURT ORDER REDUCING THE PERCENTAGE

OF VOTES NECESSARY TO AMEND CC&Rs, AND

RESERVATION OF EASEMENTS

Petition filed on 9/13/24.

MOVING PARTY: Petitioner Brookside Walk Corporation

RESPONDING PARTY: Respondents The Members of Brookside Walk Corporation

NOTICE: ok

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order reducing the percentage of votes necessary to amend Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions and Reservation of Easements.

RULING: The petition is granted. 

SUMMARY OF FACTS & PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

Petitioner Brookside Walk Corporation (Petitioner) is a homeowners association for a condominium residential development comprised of 162 units.  Petitioner is managed by a Board of Directors consisting of volunteer homeowners with the assistance of a professional management company, PMP Management  (PMP).  Petitioner is responsible for the enforcement of certain equitable servitudes, commonly known as covenants, conditions, and restrictions under a recorded document entitled, “Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions and Reservation of Easements for Brookside Walk” (Declaration).  (Petition, Ex.A).  Respondents are the Members of Petitioner who each own a condo within the development and are entitled to vote on membership matters.

One of the matters that Members must vote to approve is amendments to the Declaration.  Pursuant to Article XXI, Section 6(b) of the Declaration, amendments require 67% membership approval.  The existing Declaration requires Petitioner to maintain insurance on the individual Condominium Units known as “walls-in” insurance coverage.  Additionally, the existing Declaration requires that Petitioner to carry 100% replacement cost coverage of all common property and improvements, including certain portions of the Unit.  With rising insurance costs these requirements are becoming costly which requires Petitioner to levy special assessments to cover the cost of the insurance premiums.  Petitioner’s Board of Directors (Board) worked with Petitioner’s attorney to draft the "Proposed First Amendment to the CC&Rs" (Proposed Amendment) to lessen the financial burden of insurance coverage on Petitioner and prevent future special assessments to cover increasing premiums.  (Petition, Ex.D). 

After considerable effort and consideration, on or about 12/4/23, pursuant to the procedure in its Governing Documents, Petitioner caused a voting package, with copies of the Proposed Amendment and a letter to be mailed to its Members requesting that they vote, “yes” or “no,” for the adoption of the Proposed Amendment and setting forth, generally, the purpose of the amendment to the Declaration.  (Moskovyan Decl. ¶4-5); (Petition, Ex.E).  Despite diligent efforts on the part of Petitioner to have Members vote, only 92 ballots were returned.  (Moskovyan Decl. ¶¶6-7); (Petition, Ex.F-H). 

Of the 92 Members who voted, 87 voted “yes” in favor of adopting the Proposed Amendment.  (Petition, Ex.I).  To obtain the 67% needed to pass the proposed Amendment, 109 “yes” votes were needed.

Based on the foregoing, on 9/13/24, Petitioner filed the instant petition seeking an order reducing the percentage of votes necessary to amend Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions and Reservation of Easements.  On 9/17/24, the Court set the hearing on the petition for 11/19/24 and ordered Petitioner to provide notice to the Members via each Member’s preferred delivery method pursuant to Civil Code 4041 and all others entitled to notice pursuant to Civil Code 4275(c)(1), via first-class mail. 

Pursuant to Article XXI, Section 6(d) of the Declaration, Petitioner required consent of the City of Santa Clarita before amending or modifying any provision of the CC&Rs.  On 7/22/24, the City of Santa Clarita consented to the amendment.  (See Ketchum Decl. filed 10/31/24); (Petition, Ex.J).  Pursuant to the CC&Rs, eligible lender approval is also required to amend the insurance provisions in the CC&Rs.  An “Eligible Mortgage Holder” is defined to mean “the holder, insurer, guarantor of a first Mortgage on a Condominium who has filed with the Corporation a written request for notice of certain information as provided herein.”  (Petition, Ex.A, Article XVII, §1).  Based on information and belief, Petitioner indicates that no such lenders have requested to receive notice from Petitioner.  Therefore, there are no known Eligible Mortgage Holders as defined by the CC&Rs.  (Moskovyan Decl. ¶8).

Notice was provided to the Members on 10/4/24 via each member’s preferred delivery method.  (See Mathews Decl.).  No response/opposition from any Member has been filed or received by Petitioner.  (See Notice of Non-Opposition). 

ANALYSIS

Civil Code 4275(a) provides:

If in order to amend a declaration, the declaration requires owners having more than 50 percent of the votes in the association, in a single class voting structure, or members having more than 50 percent of the votes in more than one class in a voting structure with more than one class, to vote in favor of the amendment, the association, or any member, may petition the superior court of the county in which the common interest development is located for an order reducing the percentage of the affirmative votes necessary for such an amendment. The petition shall describe the effort that has been made to solicit approval of the association members in the manner provided in the declaration, the number of affirmative and negative votes actually received, the number or percentage of affirmative votes required to effect the amendment in accordance with the existing declaration, and other matters the petitioner considers relevant to the court's determination. The petition shall also contain, as exhibits thereto, copies of all of the following:

(1) The governing documents.

(2) A complete text of the amendment.

(3) Copies of any notice and solicitation materials utilized in the solicitation of owner approvals. (4) A short explanation of the reason for the amendment.

(5) Any other documentation relevant to the court’s determination.”

As set forth above, Petitioner failed to obtain the required 67% of votes necessary to pass the Proposed Amendment.  The Court finds that the instant petition meets the statutory requirements for such relief.  (See Petition and exhibits attached thereto; (Moskovyan Decl.; Ketchum Decls.; Mathews Decl.) See also Civil Code 4275(c), (d), (e).

CONCLUSION

The petition is granted.