wittenberg vs beachwalk: aka as homeowners vs hoa industry

7/26/2019 Wittenberg Vs Beachwalk: Aka as Homeowners Vs HOA Industry

1/23

8212545

IN TESUPREME COUT OF CALFON

PAUL ITTNBRG, et al.,Rsondnts,

v.

BACHWALK HOMRS ASSOCIATION,Ptitionrs.

TER A DEISION BY THE COURT OF PEL, OURTH PELLATE DISTRIT DIVISIO HREE

CASE No G046891

REPLY TO ASWER TO ETTON FOR REVEW

ADAMS KSSLR PLCDRIN J.DMS (B N 168678)

Y E. GRM (BAR N 168972)2566 OVRAD STE. 730L GEE, CAIFRNIA 905

(800) 4642817 F (310) 9450281

[email protected]@davissirlingcom

ATTORNEYS FOR PETITIONER

ACHWALK HOMONRS ASSOCIATION


2/23

TL OF CONTNTS

Pag

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ........................................ ........ ....... .... iii

INTRODUCTION ............. ................... ............. ...... ......................... 1

LEGAL DISCUSSION .......................................................... ........ ... 3

I. WITTENERG FAILS TO REBUT BEACWALKSSHOWIN THAT THE STATUTORYINTRPRETAION ISSUE MERITS REVIEW . ... .. ... .. ... .. .. 3

A. The tie the ici cuie nd the Cout oAel hve ll ecognized tht homeowne

ocition electo nd the inteettion oection 133.03()() e vitlly imotnt tomillion of Clionin............................................... 3

B. The mici lete nd ittenbeg' nwedemontte th the deciion h cuedconuion nd uncetinty to how noncndidte election on community iue my beonducted . ......... .......... ............. .............. ........ ........ .......

C. Wittenbeg doe not diectly dde mny o theey iue ied by Behwlk . . 8

II. WITTENBERG AND ICUS CURIAE CCHALRAISE ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS WARRANTINGREVIEW 1 1

A. The conuion egding the coe o cout'dicetion to uhold election eult when ccevioltion e inubtntil wnt eiew..... . .. . .. 1 1

B. The iue id by Wittenbeg egding whethe the Cout of Ael hould hveinvlidted the election the thn leving thteciion to the til cout' dicetion lodemontte the need o eview. ............................ 14


3/23

CONCLUSION 16

CERTIFICATE OF WORD COUNT . 17

11


4/23

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page(s)

Cases

Denham v. Superior Court( 1970) 2 Cal3d 5 .. . .. . 1 1

Grner v. Sperior Court( 1986) 182 CalApp3d 335 . ......... 14

Richrds, Wtson & Gershon v. King( 1995) 39 Cal.App4th 1 16 . . . 14

Smith v. Fetterhoff( 1956) 140 CalApp.2d 4 1.................... 14

Stnson v. Mtt( 1976) 17 Cal3d 209.. ..._ .. ... .. ..... . .... . . . . .... ...9

Statutes

. 1363.03subd. (a)(1) ............. 1 2, 3

subd (a)() .................. 2

136304 10

136309 subd (a) ..................... 1 1 12

111


5/23

IN THE

SUPEE COUT OF CALFONA

PAUL WITTENERG e lRsondnts

v

EACWK HOMOWNERS ASSOITIONPtitionr

REL TO ASER TOETTO FOR REE

INTRODUCTION

As demonstated by the answe to petton o evew and the

amus cuae lettes on le eveyone agees that the pope

constucton o secton 136303 subdvson (a)(1) 1 s an mpotant

ssue that wll have sgncant mpact on mllons o Calona

condomnum ownes.

The aguets asseted by Wttenbeg and the amc lettes

establsh that the decson by the Cout o Appeal has njectedseous conuson and uncetanty nto the pocess o conductng

1 Unless othewse ndcated all statutoy eeences n ths beae to the Calona Cv Code

1


6/23

homeowne assocaton electons It s cucal to te unctonng o

Calona assocatons that the boads know they can povde

gudance to membes wheneve impotant issues ae up o electon

wthout subjectng the membeshp to ltgaton o causng unduecosts n conductng the electon The mpotance o ths ssue, and

the conuson and seous ham aced by Calona homeowne

assocatons waants evew

Wttenbeg an amcus cuae also ase addtonal gounds

o ths Cout t gant evew They seek gudnce on the scope o a

cout's dsceton to uphold electon esults when access volatons

unde secton 136303 subdvson (a)() o (a)(2) have occued

Ths Cout should gant evew and conm that when the access

volatons ae nsgncant the tal cout has the dsceton to and

ndeed should) uphol the electon esults despte the alleged

volatons

2


7/23

LEGAL DISCUSSION

I ITTENBERG FAILS TO REBUT BEACHWALK'S

SHOG THAT THE STATUTORYINTERPRETATION ISSUE MERITS REVIEW

A The paries, h amici curia, and he Cour of ppal

have all recognize ha homeowner assoiaion

elecions an h inerpreaion of scion 136303(a)()

are vially imporan o millions of Californians

Wttenbeg gees tht the ntepetton o the equl ccess

povson o secton 136303 subdvson ()() wl hve wdesped

mpct coss the stte (Answe to Petton o Revew (APFR) p. 5

[Pettone nd Respondent gee tht the ssue wll ect mllns

o homeownes (nd) . my hve wdesped mpct on mllons o

Clon esdents]) Howeve e contends tht becuse theCout o Appel coectly constued the sttute thee s no need to

gnt evew (APFR pp. 56) In othe wods becuse he beleves

he would wn on the mets ths Cout should declne to nlyze the

decson nd ech ts own concluson. Wttenbeg s mstken

bout the mets o hs cse And ths ssue s too mpotnt nd

the esultn hm s too sevee to llow ths decson to become the

lw n Clon

In n mcus lette ugng ths Cout o nt Bechwlk's

petton twenty lw ms epesentng lge numbe o

hoeowne ssoctons toughout Clon emhszed the

3


8/23

importance of the case (See letter from Laura Snoke, Esq to

Supreme Court on behalf of wenty amicus curia Davis-Stirling Act

Comon Interest eelopment Law Firms (ugust 23, 203)

(Snoke Letter) p [There are nearly 50,000 ommon interestdevelopments in the state housing approximately 5 million

Californians (8% of the state's population)"], p. [Each year

aociations conduct annual elections as well as a variety of special

elections oerseen by 50,000 boards of directors"], p. 3 [To restore

stability to common interest developments, reduce the ris of future

litigation, and provide important election guidelines to the ndustry,

we ask that this Court grant review of ittnbrg v Bachwak

"])

The amicus letter by the Center for California Homeowner

ssociation Law (CCHAL), while submitted in support of

Wittenberg, also acknowledges the importance of homeowner

association elections and the important issue of first impression

that this case presents. (See letter from Marjorie Murray toSupreme Court on behalf of Center for California Homeowner

Association Law (August 9, 203) (CCHAL letter) p 2 [association

elections [are] an issue of continuing pulic inteest"], p 3 [theLegislature apparently believes fair electons are as vital to the

governance of associations as they are to local governments"], p

[The Wittenberg opinion addresses for the rst time a critical issue

in association elections, namely: if an association permits any

candidate or member to advocate a point of iw using association

media must the association give members with opposing views

eual access to the same media"])

4


9/23

h rcn rvisins t th Davis-Stirling Act als amplify h

urgncy that this dcisin b rviwd and apprpriat guidlins

b stablishd fr this industry As ntd by Wittnbrg,

Bachwalk urgd this Curt t rviw and rvrs th dcisin inpart bcaus th nw burdns impsd n assciatin bards wuld

mak it mch mr difficult and xpnsiv fr assciatins t btain

urt apprval f andmnts t CC&Rs undr sctin 135 f th

Civil Cd (APFR pp01 1) Amicus CCHAL cnfirms that th

abilty t amnd gvrning dcumnts is f vital intrst all

Califrnia assciatins and nts that tis intrst is hightnd

bcaus th rvisins t th DavisStirling Act, which ar ffctiv

in 2014 will rquir widsprad amndmns t gvrning

dcumnts acrss th stat (CCHAL lttr, p 3 [Amnding

vrning dcumntsth ky issu in Wittnbrgwill b f

pramunt imprtanc in 2014, whn AB805/Trrs taks ffct

This lgislatin vrhauls DavisStrling th bdy laws

gvrning assciatins. Bars ar alrady bing tld that ty willhav t rvis thi gvrning dumnts t ak thm cnfrm t

AB805 Amnding Cnditins Cvnnts and Rstrictins (CC&Rs)

is a critical issu fr hmwnrs"])

Th Curt f Appal itslf dd its dcisin a sigicant

n by crtiing it fr publicatin Th plicy issus raisd b th

dcisin ar imprtant and th industry it impacts is larg

Accrdingly, this Curts rviw is warrantd

5


10/23

B The amici leers an Wienberg's answer

emonsrae ha he ecision has cause confusion

an uncerain as o how "non-caniae elecions

on communi issues ma be onuce

ttenbergs contenton that revew s not warrante because

the law s not unsettle" an th ecson nterrete the statute n

a clear manner s mstaken (PFR p 5 Ts s a case of frst

mpresson nterpretng a statute n whch the tral court an

appellate court came to opposte conclusons as to the plan meanng

of ts rovson

he tenty law frms that jone as amc n urgng revew

have emphasze the confusn an srupton the ecson has

cause (Snoke Letter p [s mngovernments the states

assocatons now lack clear polces for how boars partcpate n

those electons thereby makng them vulnerable to ltgaton that

ultmately s harmful to all assocaton members"] p 2 [Instea ofbrngng clarty the appellate ecson n ittnbrg has create

confuson].

CHL also notes the confuson an uncertanty surrounng

associationelections and the invalidation ofelection results based

o eual access volatons (CHL letter p. 1 [there seem to be no

uniformstandards used by California Courts for determining what

crcumstances o sets of facts lea to nalaton"] p. 1

[Homeowner plantffs allegng smlar volatns of the statute

e.g that they were ene equal access to assocaton mea or were

refuse a ballot - get wely varyng results ncourt"], p. 4 [there

6


11/23

ae o stadas to gude lowe couts te execse o te

dsceto to alat a eecto"].)

Wttebeg's agumets oosg eew also demostate te

couso ad lack o claty suoudg te decso Fo exameWttebeg agues tat te decso oes ot madate tat

assocatos must ubs uedated, ueted statemets of al o

ts membes' (Ctato)" (APFR 6) Yet secto 136303,

subdso (a)() exessly odes tat a assocato may ot

edt o edact ay membes submsso

Wttebeg agues tat tee s otg te statute tat

obts a assocato m eactg easoable wod lmts" o

ote easoable submsso gudeles" tat comly wt

subsecto (a)() ad boas ae ee to moto wat t cosdes to

be ammatoy o deamtoy staces o mebe adocacy"

(APFR 78) uggestg tat assocatos may get aou te

o edactg a o edtg" maate by eactg o estats

o te accetable legt ad cotet o membe's submssos as acodt o ublcato (essetally e-edtg ad e-eactg

tem) oly ggts te couso suoudg te Cout o

Aeal's ecso a te mossble osto wc t as ace

assocatos attemtg to coduct electos Ts demostates te

eed o eew ad clacato by ts Cout

7


12/23

ienberg oes no irec aress man of he ke

issues raise b Beachak.

Wittenberg asserts that the widesread negativeconsequences enunciated by Beachwalk will not occur dismissing

hem as hyerbolic doomsday contentions that do not suport

granting review (APFR 6.) He simly assumes that ublishing

unredacted unedited commentary rom all members who wish to be

hear during elections will not cause any roblems and will not

imede an association rom using its media to communicate

recommendations about election issues t its members Based on

that assumtion he concludes the decision creates no imediment

to associations ulilling their duciary duties related to elections

no undue diiculty in obtaining necessary amendments to CC&Rs

ursuant to section 1356 when aced with voter aathy and no

intererence with the duties o disclosure and care mandated by

various rovsions o the Daistirling Act (APFR 68, 1013.)Wittenbergs assumtionis mistaken. Beachwalk'sassertion

that onerous,unpredictable consequenceswill resultif thedecision

is not revrsed is suorted not only by commonsense, butalsoby

the amici common nterest develoment law irms, who have

conirmed that the decisionwillintererewith boards ulllingtheir

dutes relatedtoelections and otentially exosethemembers to

unreasonable litigation expenses. (Snoke Letter, p 3 ["if the

aellate court's decision is not overturned 50,000 homeowner

ssociationboardswill annually face potential litigationevery time

they send out election materials], p. 3 ["They will be afraid to

8


13/23

povide important infomation to thei membeshi for fea of

subjecting thei associations to costly and contentios cout

battles"] p. 3 [To estoe stability to common interest

deveopments, educe the risk of futue litigation and povideimportant electionguidelines to theindustry, we askthat this Cout

grant reviewof Wittenbergv. Beachwalk HOA"].)

Wittenbeg does notdiectly addressBeachwak's argument

tatte decision confictswith settled lawregardingthe separate

entitystatus of acorporation,despite the fact that it isundisputed

thatthemedia" communications at issue inthis case were made by

the board in its official capcityon beha of the copoate entity.

Wittenberg argues there is n cnict because eua access can y

be triggeed when a candidate r member" advcates a pint f

view abut an eectin and the assciatin is nt ne f the acts

subect t the statute . . " (AFR p 9) Thus he agues ecause

te decisn igned the rpate stats f the auth f the medi

cmmunicatins here can be n cnict with crprate aw. Thiscnvuted circua argument aises frm the refusa t accept the

bvius that an assciatin" is nt a ember" f an assciatin

whse advcacy can trigge eua access unde the statute

Wittenberg cmpletey ignesBeachwaks cntentin that

the decision advances a policy of discouraging elected bad

mebers frm advising thei cnstituents n imprtant eectin

issues whichis cntaryt piciesunderyingthisCurt'sdecisin

in Stanson v. Mott ( 1976) 1 7 Ca.3d 209 and its prgeny (See

etionforReview (PFR pp.32-35.)

9


14/23

Wittenberg also fails to address Beachwalk's argument that

the decision cannot be haronizedwith sction 1363.04ofthe Civil

Cde. This section precludes associations from using funds t

campaign in support of favored candidates during board elections,

but provides that associationsay prperlyuse fundsfor campaign

prposes during non-candidate elections to the extent necessary t

comply with the association's legal duties (See PFR pp. 30-32)

!he pvisions of this section demonstrate that different interests

and policies ae implicated depending on the type of election being

coducted They evidene a recogntion by the Legislature that

communications by associations about ssues will often be necessary

uring non-candidate elections in order to comply with duties owed

to te mmbersip. Both ittenberg and the Court of Appeal fail to

recognize thatprecldingelected leaders from offering guidance to

members aboutimportntelectionissues is contrary totheterms of

section 1363.04 and the underlying policies concernng non-

candidat elections reected in its provisions.Wittenberg has failed to rebut Beachwalk's showing that

reviewof the decisionis warranted.

10


15/23

II WIEBERG AD MICUS CURIAE CCHAL RAISE

ADDIIO QUESIOS WARRAIG REVIEW

A he confusion regring he scope of coursiscreion o uphol elecion resuls hen ccess

violions re insusnil wrrns revie

Te anwer bmitted by Wittenberg and CCHL amic

letter bt argue tat review i neceary t clear p qetin

abut te extent a crt' dicretin t pld electin reult

prunt t eci 1363.09 bdiviin (a te Calirnia Civil

Cde wen acce vilatin ave ccurred (PFR pp. 2 31

CHAL letter pp. 14.) Te Curt ppeal ater ndng tattry

vilatin ccrred let it t te icrtin te trial crt t

determine wat eect tat uld ave n Beacwalk' electin

relt. Te anwer argue tat ti dipitin raied a matter

rt imprei" cncerning te invalidatin electin relt bytrial crt and crt appeal (PFR p 2) Wittenberg aer

te curt ppeal let pen ti crucial ie ie weter r nt

te electin reult ld ave been invalidated a a relt e

inding vilatin under 136303(a)(1) and (a)(2)." (PFR p 2)

He cntend ti warant ti crt cnideratin a t

prvide guidance t Calirnia crt w truggle wit te

applcatin tee recent tatty enactment" (PFR p 2)

Beacwalkaert tat Califrnialawi clear tat te curt

retain a reat eal f dicretin wic i diturbed nly en a

clea micariage fjtie a ccurred. (Denham v. Suprior Court

1 1


16/23

(970) 2 Ca 3d 7, ) Winbrg acnowldgs his in his

answr, and nos ha scion 3309 subdivision (a) provids

ha a cour ay" void lcion rsuls i violaions hav occurrd

APFR pp. 3) Howvr, h argus ha h policy o librallyconsrung rdial saus qus a cour o invalida lcion

rsuls whnvr a violaio occurs unlss h cour is orbidn by

sau o do so PF pp ) This argun donsras

so conusion abou h xn o whic rial cour hav

discrion o uphold lcion rsuls whn insignican qual accss

violaions hav occurrd

Th CCL lr also rquss rviw o h unsld"

issu rarding h scop o a cour's discrion o invalida

lcion rsuls, noing h conusion in h couniy rgarding

whhr invalidaio undr scion 3309 is auoaic (CCL

lr, pp 1, 4 [ny hoownrs liv ha a violaion o h

saus lads auoaically o an invalidaion o a lcion")

CCL nos ha h dra languag o scion 33.09iniially providd ha cion rsuls shall" invalid i an

accss violaion occurrd, bu ha andaory languag was

changd by h raing coi o a prissiv ay" b voidd

o addrss cncrns o drars ha iigaion woud b gnrad

or insgnican accss violaions (CL lr, p. 4 [brs o

h worng grop wr concrnd a hoownrs would bring

suisand lcions would hav o b rconvndor wha wr

prcivd s inor inracions o h sau")

Bachwalk connds ha cours possss broad discrion o

uphold lcion rsuls whn h violaions o lcion accss ruls

12


17/23

ar isubstatial his cas prsts a particularly good vhicl to

addrss this issu h trial court oud o violatios o sctio

6303 subdivisio (a)(2) rgardig r accss to commo aras

durig th August 20 ctio h Court o Appal rvrsdidig two violatios that wr xtrmly attuatd rom th

August lctio ad particularly isubstatial (p 67)

pciically, th court poitd to () th maagmt compay

mistaly chargig a mmbr $90 or us o a clubhous acility

durig a lctio i Dcmbr 200 (ad vidtly ailig to

rud th ) ad (2) th dial o a rqust to us a grblt

basd o a icomplt orm submittd by th mmbr durig a

lctio i April 20 p 6-7)

Bachwalk agrs with Wittbrg that this Cour should

grat rviw to clari that such isubstatial violatios costitut

a propr circumstac i which th trial court should xrcis its

discrtio ad uphold th lctio rsults

ordr to addrss th qustio raisd by Wittbrg thisCourt must grat rviw ad trtai briig o th issu his

is cosistt with Bachwal's ptitio also urgig this Court to

grat rviw ad brig clarity t th Davistirlig statutory

schm with rspct to how associatio boards ca ulill thir

dutis as lctd ladrs to advis thir commuitis whil

coductig o-cadidat lctios o issus i, whr masurs

ar put o th ballot or mmbrship approval suc as spcial

assssmts or proposd amdmts to th CC&Rs

3


18/23

B The issue aise b Wienbeg egaing whehe he

Cou of Appea shou have invaiae he eecion

ahe han eaving ha ecision o he ia cou's

isceion aso eonsaes he nee fo eview

Witteberg also asks this Court to grat reviw to determie

wether the Court of Aeal should have ivalidated the electio

results based uo its fidig of violatios of sectio 3303,

sudivisio (a)() (equal access to media) ad subdivisio (a)(2)

(equal access to commo areas) (APFR 2.)

Beachwalk asserts that the trial court's discretio is broad,

a where it has discretio bt has ot exercised it the roer

aellate remedy is to reverse the judgmet wth directios to the

trial court to exercise its discretio (Richrds, Wtson Gershon

v King (995) 39 CalA4th 7 8 [til court icorrectly

believed that a attorey's lawsuit agaist a cliet must be

dismissed; judgmet reversed with directios to te trial court toexercise its discretio i cosiderig the cliet's motio to dismiss;

Grdner v Superior Court (98) 82 CalA3d 335 34 [trial

court icorrectly believed it was requred to grat the defedat's

motio for relief from a default judgmet case remaded to allow

trial court to to exercise ifored discretio i decidig this

matter"; Smith v Fetterhoff (95) 40 CalA2d 47 473

where as i the istat case the trial court refused to cosider ad

weigh evidece uo the erroeous teory that it could ot e

cosidere a aellate court is ot justifid i afrmig the

4


19/23

judgment upon the ground that the evidence supports the

judgment"])

Wittenbergs argument that the Court of Appeal should have

invalidated the election results evidences a level of confusion aboutthe appropriate role of the appellate court in invalidating election

results after t has rersed a trial court's finding that no electio

violation had ocurred, and the need for review to clari this issue.

15


20/23

CONCLUSION

So as to establish proper election policies for a large and

growing industry we rspectfully request this Court grantBeachwalk's petition

September 3, 2013 ADAMS KESSLER PLCADRIAN J. ADAMSMARY E. GR

MARY E GRAMAttorneys for PetitionerBEACHWALK HOMEONERS

ASSOCIATION

16


21/23

CERIFICAE OF WORD COUNT

(al. Rules of Court, rule 8504(d)().)

The text of this petition consistsof 3,066 words as counted y

te Microsoft Word version 2010 word processing program used to

generate the etition.

Dated: Septeber 3, 203

7


22/23

PROOF OF SERVICE

STATE OF CALIFRNIA, COUNTY OF LS ANGELES

At the time of service, I was over 18 years o age and not a party to this action I

am employed in the County of Los Angeles State of California My busines address is15760 Ventra Bolevard 18th Floor, Encino Calfornia 91436-3000.

On September 3 2013 I served true copies of the following document(s)described as REPLY TO ANSER T PETITION FOR REVIEW on the interested

parties in this action as follows:

SEE ATTCHED SERVICE IST

BY MIL: I enclosed the document(s) in a sealed envelope or packageaddressed to the persons at the addresses listed in the Service List and placed the

envelope for collection and mailing following our ordinary business practices. I amreadily familiar with Horvitz & evy LLP's practice for collecting and processingcorrespondence for mailing On the same day that the correspondence is placed forcollction and mailing it is deposited in the ordinary corse of business with theUnited States Postal Service in a sealed envelope with postage flly prepaid

I declare under penalty of perjuy under the laws of the State of California thatthe fregoing is tre and corect

Executed on September 3 2013 a Encino California


23/23

SERVICE LISTWittenberg v. Beachwalk HOA

Court of Appeal Cse No. G046891Superior Court Cse No 30-201100507078

William L. BuusSchier & Buus APC3070 Bristol St Ste 530Costa Mesa CA 92626

California Court of Apeal Fourth Appellate District, Div 3

601 W Santa Ana Blvd.Santa Ana CA 92701

Hon Thierry Patrick Colaw

Orange County Superior Court700 Civic Center Drive Westept 25Santa Ana CA 92701

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and AppellantsPaul Wittenberg Raymond Dqkellis

Court of Appeal Case No G046891

Case No 30-201100507078

wittenberg vs beachwalk: aka as homeowners vs hoa industry

Documents