Lawrence v. Twin Palms HOA
Filed 3/15/06 Lawrence v. Twin Palms HOA CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
| LORRAINE LAWRENCE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. TWIN PALMS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., Defendant and Respondent. | E037114 (Super.Ct.No. INC38967) OPINION |
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Christopher J. Sheldon, Judge. Affirmed.
Feldscott & Lee and Martin L. Lee; Timothy G. Dallinger; Makarem & Associates, Ronald W. Makarem and Peter M. Kunstler, for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Bonnie R. Moss & Associates, Bradley R. Blamires and Thomas J. Mullen, for Defendants and Respondents.
Plaintiff and appellant Lorraine Lawrence (plaintiff) appeals from a judgment of dismissal entered in favor of defendants and respondents, Twin Palms Homeowners Association, Inc. (the homeowners association), Donald B. Maloof, Robert W. Stockstill, Arthur H. Jones, Jason A. Altieri, Wayne Zion, Rob D. Roy and Roy W. Waybright/The Waybright Family Trust (collectively, defendants), after the trial court sustained the individual defendants' demurrers to the second amended complaint and the homeowners association's demurrer to the third amended complaint without leave to amend. We shall affirm the judgment.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Because the matter arises after demurrer has been sustained, we must treat all properly pled facts as true. (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.) The third amended complaint alleged as follows:
The case involves a common interest development known as Twin Palms. Plaintiff owns a condominium within the development. The homeowners association's membership consists of the owners of the homes within the Twin Palms development. The development consists of 33 condominium units that are nestled together on one side of the street, and six larger, single-family, detached residences on the other side of the street. The owners of these six single-family residences are the individual defendants in this case. Plaintiff is a homeowner of one of the condominiums.
On March 12, 2003, the homeowners association conducted an election to vote on an amendment to the bylaws and covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CC&R's) of the homeowners association. This amendment, known as the Third Amendment, would remove or de-annex six properties from the homeowners association. The de-annexed properties consist of the six single-family residences located across the street from the condominium units where plaintiff resides. Plaintiff, along with one other person, voted against the de-annexation. A second election on September 23, 2003, yielded similar results – 35 yes votes, 2 no votes, and 2 abstentions.
Plaintiff contends that the recorded Third Amendment to the CC&R's is null and void because a unanimous vote from the property owners was required, but not obtained.
Plaintiff filed her original complaint against the homeowners association on October 17, 2003. The complaint alleged two causes of action for declaratory relief and damages. In the original complaint, plaintiff acknowledged that she did not send the homeowners association a request for resolution in compliance with former Civil Code section 1354 (section 1354).[1] She stated: â€
