Association’s ‘Parental’ Attitude Ruled Invasive

Robert is a senior citizen who owns an attached home subject to the covenants, conditions and restrictions (CC&Rs;) of the Fountain Valley Chateau Blanc Homeowners Assn. He has Hodgkin’s disease.

A roofing contractor hired by the association could not maneuver his equipment in Robert’s backyard due to debris there. The association’s lawyer wrote to Robert, demanding he clear his patio and open the interior of his unit to inspection because there had been reports of fire hazards inside his home.

Under threat of a lawsuit, Robert reluctantly allowed association representatives to inspect his residence. Several months later, the association sued Robert for alleged fire and safety hazards from junk and paper in his home. But housing code and fire inspectors found no hazardous conditions on the premises.

However, the association did not drop its lawsuit. The association attorney wrote to Robert, demanding he clear his bed of all paper and books; remove paper, cardboard boxes and books from the floor area around his bed and dresser; and repair the light in the downstairs bathroom. The letter also suggested Robert remove clothing he hasn’t worn for five years and donate it to the Salvation Army.

Robert hired an attorney, who filed a cross-complaint against the association for violations of his right to privacy, trespass, negligence and breach of contract.

Before trial, the association’s lawsuit against Robert was settled when he agreed to keep his patio clean and not to store gasoline or kerosene in his residence. That left only Robert’s cross-complaint against the association.

If you were the judge, would you rule the association is liable for damages to Robert?

The judge said yes.

If there was a fire danger in Robert’s home, the judge began, the homeowners association has authority to require removal of any hazards. However, inspectors found no such hazard existed.

“The association’s rather high-handed attempt to micromanage Robert’s personal housekeeping . . . was beyond the purview of any legitimate interest it had in preventing undesirable external effects or maintaining property values,” the judge said.

“Particularly galling to us was the presumptuous attempt to lecture Robert about getting rid of his old clothes, the way he kept his own bedroom, and the kind of reading material he could have.”

“When Robert bought his unit, we seriously doubt that he contemplated the association would ever tell him to clean up his own bedroom like some parent nagging an errant teenager,” the judge added.

The association did not act reasonably under the circumstances and is liable to Robert for damages, the judge ruled.

Based on the 1998 California Court of Appeal decision in Cunningham v. Superior Court, 79 Cal.Rptr.2d 248.