Judge: Upinder S. Kalra, Case: 22STCV10576, Date: 2025-01-10 Tentative Ruling
1. If you wish to submit on the tentative ruling, please email the clerk at SMCdept51@lacourt.org (and “cc” all other parties in the same email) and notify all other parties in advance that you will not be appearing at the hearing. Include the word "SUBMISSION" in all caps in the subject line and include your name, contact information, the case number, and the party you represent in the body of the email. If you do not have access to the internet, you may call the clerk at (213) 633-0351.
If you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear and argue the motion, and the Court may decide not to adopt the tentative ruling. Please note that the tentative ruling is not an invitation, nor an opportunity, to file any further documents relative to the hearing in question which are not authorized by statute or Rule of Court.
2. For any motion where no parties submit to the tentative ruling in advance, and no parties appear at the motion hearing, the Court may elect to either adopt the tentative ruling or take the motion off calendar, in its discretion.
3. DO NOT USE THE ABOVE EMAIL FOR ANY PURPOSE OTHER THAN TO SUBMIT TO A TENTATIVE RULING. The Court will not read or respond to emails sent to this address for any other purpose.
Case Number: 22STCV10576 Hearing Date: January 10, 2025 Dept: 51
Proposed Statement of Decision
Judge Upinder S.
Kalra, Department 51
HEARING DATE: January
10, 2025
CASE NAME: Reed L. Harman, et al. v. Stanley
Francis Cho, et al.
CASE NO.: 22STCV10576
Pursuant to CCP § 632 and Rule of Court, rule 3.1590,
this Court issues the following TENTATIVE findings of fact and conclusions of
law as to the each of the “principal controverted issues” at the court trial on
this matter, subject to a party’s objection within 15 days of service of this
proposed statement. If no objections are timely filed, this tentative decision
will become the Statement of Decision.
BACKGROUND OF PROCEEDINGS:
On March 28, 2022, Plaintiffs Reed L. Harman, and Nan M.
Harman, individually and as Trustees of the Visalia Trust (Plaintiffs) filed a
Complaint against Defendants Stanley Francis Chao and Steve Francis Chao
(Defendants). The Complaint had four causes of action for: (1) declaratory
relief; (2) injunctive relief; (3) nuisance; and (4) negligence.
On November 8, 2022, Defendant Stanley Francis Chao filed
an Answer.
On December 15, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a Request for
Dismissal as to Defendant Steve Francis Chao only.
On March 6, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a Complaint against
Defendant Steve Francis Chao only, bearing Case No. 23STCV04882 for (1)
declaratory relief, (2) injunctive relief, (3) nuisance, and (4)
negligence.
On March 22, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Related
Case.
On April 5, 2023, the subsequent case was transferred to
Dept. 51 and the first case was deemed the lead case.
On April 18, 2023, Cross-Complainants Stanley Francis Chao,
Steven Francis Chao, and Herair Garboushian filed a Cross-Complaint against Cross-Defendants Reed L.
Harman and Nan M. Harman, individually, and as Trustees of the Visalia
Trust.
On May 4, 2023, Defendant Steven Francis Chao filed an
Answer to the Complaint in the second action.
On July 26, 2023, Cross-Complainants sought leave to file a
First Amended Cross-Complaint, which the court granted.
On August 23, 2023, Cross-Complainants filed a First
Amended Cross-Complaint (FACC) with four causes of action for: (1) Trespass;
(2) Invasion of Privacy; (3) Nuisance; (4) Declaratory Relief; and (4)
Injunctive Relief.
On December 4 and
5, the court heard testimony and received evidence on the first phase of a
bifurcated court trial.
On December 17,
2024, Defendant filed a closing brief.
On December 23,
2024, Plaintiff filed a reply to Defendant’s closing brief.
BACKGROUND
This dispute involves real property located at 1820 Via
Visalia, Palos Verdes Estates, California 90274 (Plaintiff’s Property) and real
property located at 1113 Via Mirabel, Palos Verdes Estates, California 90274
(Defendant’s Property). Both properties are located within the Palos Verdes
Homes Association (PVHA). Properties within the PVHA boundaries are
generally subject to the CC&Rs. Article V, Section 7 of the CC&Rs
expressly provides that:
"No tree over twenty feet in height above the ground shall be
trimmed, cut back, removed or killed except with the approval of the Homes
Association, and representatives of the Homes Association and/or of the Art
Jury shall have the right at any time to enter on or upon any property for the
purpose of cutting back trees or other plantings which may grow up to a greater
height than in the opinion of the Homes Association is warranted to maintain
the view and protect adjoining
property. The Homes Association shall have sole authority and right to
trim, remove, replace, plant or re-plant or otherwise care for the trees,
shrubs and plantings in the sidewalk or other spaces in front of lots or adjoining them, subject to any
county or other officials having superior jurisdiction."
(Trial Exhibit 1, pp. 36-37, emphasis added.)
In
2021, the PVHA adopted Resolution 191, which expressed the association’s
interpretation of Section 7. In
relevant part, the Association interpreted the phrase “ ... is warranted to maintain the view and
protect adjoining property, ... " to mean that its view maintenance authority extended to maintaining
the view of all properties and not just to the view of adjoining properties.
CONTENTIONS
Plaintiffs claim that Defendants have failed to properly
maintain their trees and vegetation which resulted in obstructing Plaintiffs’
views from the main living areas of their property. Plaintiffs contend
that that they have a right to their scenic views under the PVHA’s CC&Rs as
well as through a 2016 Landscape Approval by the PVHA Art Jury. Plaintiffs allege that they have the right to enforce the
Restrictions against Defendants. Thus, Plaintiffs seek a declaration
that Defendants’ trees now significantly obstruct those views in violation of the
PVHA’s governing documents and the subsequent 2016 Landscaping Approval.
Defendants contend that the plain reading of Article V, Section
7, indicates that only the views of adjacent
property owners are protected. Defendants add that according
to the CC&R’s, Amendments require a two-thirds vote of affected property
owners. No such vote was taken. Instead, only a majority of the PVHA Board
passed a resolution—Resolution 191—that purporting to interpret Section 7 as
applying to non-adjacent property owners. As such, relying upon Major v. Miraverde Homeowners Assn. (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 618, 628["[A]n association may not exceed the
authority granted to it by the CC&R's. Where the association exceeds its
scope of authority, any rule or decision resulting from such an ultra vires act
is invalid whether or not it is a 'reasonable' response to a particular
circumstance. Where a circumstance arises which is not adequately covered by
the CC&R's, the remedy is to amend the CC&R's."] Thus, Defendants
assert, that absent a formal amendment to the relevant terms of the CC&Rs,
the PVHA cannot adopt rules, regulations, or resolutions that contradict the
plain language of the CC&Rs. Since it is undisputed that Plaintiffs’
property and Defendants’ properties are not adjacent, the CC&Rs do not grant
Plaintiffs the right to enforce the trimming of Defendants’ vegetation whether
or not they obstruct Plaintiffs’ views.
Defendants further contend that
since the Art Jury’s authority is derived from the CC&R’s, the Art
Jury did not have the power to add more restrictions than the CC&Rs. Thus, the 2016 landscape stamp by the Art Jury has no legal
significance. In sum, the Defendants urge the Court to interpret the
phrase “ ... is warranted to maintain the view and protect adjoining property,
... " as requiring properties to be adjoining for view maintenance purposes.
LEGAL STANDARD:
Any person claiming rights under a contract (oral or
written) or under a written instrument other than a will or trust, or with
respect to property, may bring an action for a declaration of the person's
rights or duties with respect to another. (CCP § 1060.)
Generally, courts interpret CC&Rs under contract
principles (Nahrstedt v. Lakeside Village
Condominium Assn. (1994) 8 Cal.4th
361, 380–381. However, courts defer to decisions made by homeowner associations
when they act within their authority and in good faith. (Lamden v. La Jolla Shores
Clubdominium Homeowners Association (1999) 21 Cal.4th 249, 253.)
ANALYSIS:
In Phase 1 of the trial, the court was
asked to address two issues:
(1) Does the view maintenance authority
found in Article V, Section 7 of the Protective Restrictions extend to all
Association properties, or to just adjoining properties; and,
(2) Are the Chao’s obligated to cut
their trees to maintain the neighbor’s views free from obstruction after
accepting the benefits of the 2016 Conditional Landscape Approval?
The Court agrees with Defendant’s contention that the Art
Jury has no greater authority than the CC&R. Thus, only the first question
needs to be answered.
The entire dispute comes down to the interpretation of the following
part of Section 7: “for the purpose of cutting back trees or other plantings
which may grow up to a greater height than in the opinion of the Homes
Association is warranted to maintain the
view and protect adjoining property.” In actuality it is the meaning of the
last seven words in italics that are questioned. Does the phrase “adjoining
property apply only to “protect” or also to “the view.” A close examination of
the construction of the sentence reveals that each of these nouns are objects of
two separate verbs. The first verb in the phrase—maintain—employs the object “view”
while the second verb in the phrase—protect— uses the object “adjoining property.”
Thus, the plain reading of this sentence demonstrates that the Homes Association
has two distinct responsibilities: (1) to maintain the view and (2) to protect
adjoining property. It begs the question: maintain the view of whom?
One plausible reading, advanced by
Defendants, is that Section 7 limits the Association’s view maintenance responsibilities
to adjoining properties. Another plausible construction, offered by Plaintiffs,
is that Section 7 grants the Association broad authority to maintain scenic
views across all properties. The Court rejects Defendants assertion that the only
reasonable reading of Section 7 is that the Association can only maintain the
view of adjacent properties. To support such a conclusion, the court would have
to rewrite the sentence to add the following italics language: “to maintain
the view [of adjoining property] and [to] protect adjoining property.” Once it is conceded that there is ambiguity
in the structure of the sentence that results in differing reasonable interpretations,
the court must defer to the findings of the HOA, if it is reasoned and in good
faith.
In Resolution 191, the Association
states that it has been its experience that “significant view obstructions may
occur whether properties are adjoining or are separated by some distance;” and
thereby interpreted Section 7 to mean that “properties need not be adjoining”
for the view maintenance provisions
of Article V, Section 7 to apply. [Exhibit 2, p.2, ¶ 1B]. This interpretation
is reasonable. Further, the Association’s findings were made in good faith as supported
by their statements that “ ... it has been the Association’s experience that
significant view obstructions may occur whether properties are adjoining or
separated by some distance…”. “[Trial Exhibit 2. p.2]. Lastly, Resolution 191
was not arbitrary but rather, rationally related to the Association’s view maintenance
goals. Accordingly, the Association acted within its authority to promulgate Resolution
191 as a statement of intent of grantors of the CC&Rs.
Further, the court agrees that Resolution
191 was not an amendment to Article V, section 7.
CONCLUSION:
Plaintiffs have met their burden by a preponderance of the
evidence that Resolution 191 is a reasonable interpretation of Article V, Section
7 and was not an amendment to the CC&Rs.
Moving party is to give notice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 10, 2025 __________________________________ Upinder
S. Kalra
Judge of the Superior Court