Beehan v. Lido Isle Community Assn.
| Decision Date | 20 June 1977 |
| Citation | 70 Cal.App.3d 858,137 Cal.Rptr. 528 |
| Parties | T. Edward BEEHAN and Claire E. Beehan, Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. LIDO ISLE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, a nonprofit corporation, Defendant and Respondent. Civ. 15980. |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Joslyn, Roeth, Angerhofer, Olds & Condon and Daniel B. Condon, Pasadena, for plaintiffs and appellants.
Rutan & Tucker and Robert C. Braun, Santa Ana, for defendant and respondent.
T. Edward Beehan and Claire E. Beehan (hereinafter 'plaintiffs') appeal from a judgment in favor of defendant Lido Isle Community Association (hereinafter 'Association') denying plaintiffs' claim for reimbursement for attorney fees and costs incurred in obtaining a stipulated judgment against Robert P. and Loring P. Warmington (hereinafter 'Warmingtons').
Findings of fact and conclusions of law were waived by plaintiffs' failure to request them. (Code Civ.Proc., § 632.) Accordingly, we presume in support of the judgment each favorable finding of fact supported by the evidence. (Stewart v. Langer, 9 Cal.App.2d 60, 61, 48 P.2d 758.)
Plaintiffs and the Warmingtons own property situated diagonally across a street from each other on Lido Isle in Newport Beach. The property on Lido Isle is subject to a Declaration of Protective Restrictions executed and recorded in 1928. Association is a nonprofit corporation which was also organized in 1928. The activities in which it is permitted to engage are set forth in the 'Purposes Clause' of its articles of incorporation. One of the enumerated purposes is the enforcement of the Declaration of Protective Restrictions.
In November 1973, the Warmingtons submitted architectural plans to Association for approval. Association's architectural committee reviewed the plans to determine whether there were any setback restrictions and in so doing relied on a booklet entitled 'The Declaration of Restrictions' which contained the original restrictions and modifications thereto. The booklet indicated a 4-foot setback requirement. Warmingtons' plans complied. Association therefore approved the plans as submitted. The same plans were approved by the City of Newport Beach and a building permit was issued in December 1973.
Construction of the Warmingtons' house commenced in January 1974. In February, plaintiffs contacted Mr. William Sprague, Association's administrator, for the purpose of ascertaining whether the Warmingtons' structure violated a setback provision in the Declaration of Restrictions. Mr. Sprague inspected the building site but could not determine whether the construction violated setback requirements. He requested the City of Newport Beach to inspect the premises; the city did so and found that the construction did not breach the restrictions.
On February 25, plaintiffs visited Association's offices to review the Declaration of Restrictions and Association's minute book. The declaration indicated only a 4-foot setback requirement on the Warmingtons' property. From the minute book, however, plaintiffs found copies of minutes from meetings held in 1953 and 1954 which indicated that Association's board of directors adopted a resolution amending the setback requirement on the Warmingtons' property and some surrounding property from four feet to six feet. A copy of the amendment had been recorded February 25, 1954. Plaintiffs informed Mr. Sprague of their discovery.
In a continuation of his investigation, Mr. Sprague reviewed the minutes and also reviewed the 1928 Declaration of Restrictions. This declaration specifies certain procedures that must be followed in order to adopt a valid modification of the restrictions. First, there must be a public hearing. After such hearing, written consent of Association must be given. Finally, written consent must be obtained from more than one-half of the owners of the property within 500 feet of the outer boundaries of the lot or lots on which the restrictions are to be changed.
Mr. Sprague reviewed the minutes and other records of Association to determine the validity of the 1953 modification. The March 11, 1953 minutes state that a public hearing was held on March 14, 1953, three days After the minutes were dated and one month After approval was given by Association's board of directors. Since the declaration required the public hearing to be held Before Association's approval, this procedure was in conflict with the modification requirements. Moreover, Mr. Sprague could find no evidence that written consent had been obtained from the necessary property owners. He therefore notified members of Association's board of directors that his examination cast substantial doubt upon the validity of the 1953 amendment.
Prior to the next board meeting, Mr. Sprague photocopied minutes of the 1953 meetings, the resolution adopted at that time, minutes of the 1954 meeting that referred to the purported modification and copies of his memorandum detailing the lack of proof that such modification was validly adopted. He included these in an agenda packet which was distributed to all board members before the meeting. Several board members also visited the construction site before the meeting.
On March 13, the board, on the first of several occasions, considered the problem. Plaintiffs and their attorney appeared and made a presentation supporting their position that a 6-foot setback was applicable. The Warmingtons also appeared and presented evidence supporting their contention that a 4-foot setback was proper. The meeting was open to all members of Association. An attorney and former member of the board of directors, Mr. Mel Richly, after reviewing the adoption procedure of the alleged 1953 modification, expressed his opinion to the board that the modification was invalid and unenforceable.
A special meeting of the board of directors was held on March 16 for the sole purpose of reviewing the setback matter. In attendance were members of Association's architectural committee, members of the board, plaintiffs, plaintiffs' attorney, the Warmingtons and Mr. Sprague. Each side reiterated its respective position. Another discussion ensued regarding the validity and enforceability of the purported amendment. Nevertheless, the problem was not resolved.
On April 17, the next regularly scheduled board meeting was held. After an extensive discussion, the board decided to forgo seeking an injunction against the Warmingtons for violating the alleged 1953 modification of the Declaration of Restrictions. On April 18, Mr. Sprague informed plaintiffs' attorney of Association's decision not to proceed against the Warmingtons.
Having filed suit on or about April 1, on May 7 plaintiffs obtained a preliminary injunction restraining the Warmingtons from proceeding further with the construction of their house. Association's board of directors held a meeting the following day to again discuss this dispute. Both plaintiffs and the Warmingtons stated their respective positions. After a lengthy period of deliberation, the chairman of the board suggested a compromise whereby the setback on the Warmingtons' property would be changed to five feet. This proposal was acceptable to the Warmingtons but not to plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs filed their first amended complaint on May 28, 1974. The first count was directed against the Warmingtons and sought a mandatory injunction requiring them to modify the home they were constructing to conform to the alleged 6-foot setback requirement. The second count was directed against Association and sought reimbursement for plaintiffs' fees and costs incurred in the action against the Warmingtons.
In March 1975, plaintiffs and Warmingtons entered into a stipulation for judgment whereby the Warmingtons agreed to modify their house so that it was set back six feet. Association was not a party to this stipulation. Plaintiffs then proceeded to trial against Association. The case was tried on the second count of plaintiffs' first amended complaint only and the sole problem confronting the trial court was whether plaintiffs were entitled to reimbursement for costs 1 and attorneys' fees incurred in obtaining judgment against the Warmingtons. 2
Plaintiffs are vague as to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Deborah C., In re
...made all findings in support of the judgment for which there is substantial evidence. (E. g., Beehan v. Lido Isle Community Assn. (1977), 70 Cal.App.3d 858, 861, 137 Cal.Rptr. 528; see Rodriguez v. Municipal Court (1972) 25 Cal.App.3d 521, 525, 102 Cal.Rptr. 9 Triggs and Metcalf rely in par......
-
Lamden v. La Jolla Shores Clubdominium Homeowners Assn.
...425, 429, 4 Cal.Rptr.2d 334 [rule applied to decision by board of incorporated community association]; Beehan v. Lido Isle Community Assn. (1977) 70 Cal.App.3d 858, 865, 137 Cal.Rptr. 528 [same].) The policies underlying judicial creation of the common law rule derive from the realities of ......
-
Country Nat. Bank v. Mayer
...the directors of a corporation relative to the day-to-day management of the corporation. See, e.g., Beehan v. Lido Isle Community Assoc., 70 Cal.App.3d 858, 865, 137 Cal.Rptr. 528 (1977); Marsili v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co., 51 Cal.App.3d 313, 324, 124 Cal.Rptr. 313 (1975); and Lewis v. A......
-
Lee v. Interinsurance Exchange
...20 Cal.Rptr.2d 87 [declining to interfere with insurer's business judgment as to level of surplus]; Beehan v. Lido Isle Community Assn. (1977) 70 Cal.App.3d 858, 865-867, 137 Cal.Rptr. 528 [refusing to compel homeowners' association to pay attorney fees incurred by member in enforcing CC & ......