Youngblood v. Wilcox, E005480

• Decision Date: 17 February 1989
• Docket Number: No. E005480,E005480
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: William YOUNGBLOOD, et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. Terry WILCOX, etc., et al., Defendants and Appellants.

Page 527

255 Cal.Rptr. 527

207 Cal.App.3d 1368

William YOUNGBLOOD, et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. Terry WILCOX, etc., et al., Defendants and Appellants.

No. E005480.

Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division 2, California.

Feb. 17, 1989.

Quinn & Emanuel, David W. Quinto and Eric Emanuel, Los Angeles, for defendants and appellants

Michael Zitomer, Palm Springs, for plaintiffs and respondents.

OPINION

DABNEY, Associate Justice.

Defendants Terry Wilcox, Mission Hills Country Club, Mission Hills Company, and Landmark Land Company, Inc., (collectively, Mission Hills) appeal from entry of a preliminary injunction restraining defendants from interfering with plaintiffs William and Henrietta Youngblood's use and enjoyment of the benefits of a lifetime membership in the Mission Hills Country Club (Club).

FACTS

The Youngbloods filed a complaint for breach of contract, bad faith breach of contract, intentional infliction of emotional distress and for preliminary and permanent injunction. The Youngbloods alleged that they purchased a residence in the Club's development in the 1970's and later purchased a regular membership in the Club, which allowed them to use the golf and tennis facilities at the development. In 1981, when the Club began offering lifetime memberships, the Youngbloods converted their regular membership to a lifetime membership upon payment of an additional fee.

The complaint further alleged that William Youngblood served as president of the Phase Three Mission Hills Golf Course Villas Association. In his duties as president of that association, William participated in negotiations between the various homeowners' associations and Mission Hills regarding the responsibility for guard gates serving the community. On September 18, 1987, defendant Terry Wilcox, the president of the Club, requested a meeting with William to discuss the guard gate controversy. At the meeting, Wilcox made certain demands. William declined to submit to those demands, believing that he could not do so in proper exercise of his duties as president of the homeowners' association.

On September 19, 1987, Wilcox sent a written notification to the Youngbloods terminating their membership in the Club. The Youngbloods requested reinstatement of their previous regular membership pending resolution of the propriety of their expulsion; Mission Hills denied the request. In their complaint, the Youngbloods alleged that their termination was in retaliation for William's proper and lawful activities as president of the homeowners' association.

The court issued an order to Mission Hills to show cause why it should not be preliminarily enjoined from interfering with the Youngbloods' membership rights. Mission Hills filed points and authorities, declarations, and excerpts from William Youngblood's deposition in opposition to the request for preliminary injunction. Following a hearing, the trial court issued a preliminary injunction restraining Mission Hills from interfering with the Youngbloods' rights as lifetime members of the Club.

ANALYSIS

The trial court's exercise of discretion in ruling on an application for preliminary injunction will not be disturbed on appeal absent a showing that the trial court abused its discretion. (Cohen v. Board of Supervisors of City and County of San Francisco (1986) 178 Cal.App.3d 447, 452, 225 Cal.Rptr. 114.) ¹ Trial courts evaluate two interrelated factors in deciding whether to issue preliminary injunctions. First, the court considers whether the plaintiff is likely to prevail on the merits. Second, the court weighs the interim harm to the plaintiff if the injunction is denied with the harm to the defendant if the injunction is issued. (Cohen, supra, 178 Cal.App.3d at p. 452, 225 Cal.Rptr. 114.) The grant of a preliminary injunction does not determine any of the merits of the controversy. (Baypoint Mortgage Corp. v. Crest Premium Real Estate Etc. Trust (1985) 168 Cal.App.3d 818, 823, 214 Cal.Rptr. 531.) Nor does it require a finding that the party seeking the preliminary injunction will necessarily prevail on the merits. (Id., at p. 824, 214 Cal.Rptr. 531.) "[W]e as the reviewing courtmust merely determine whether the trial court 'exceeded the bounds of reason' in determining [plaintiff] has a 'reasonable probability of prevailing on the merits' and that the 'balance of hardships' favors [plaintiff]. We can reverse the order only if appellant demonstrates an abuse of discretion in resolving these two issues. [Citation.]" (Ibid.)

Likelihood of Prevailing on the Merits. Mission Hills claims that the Youngbloods did not establish the probability that they will prevail on the merits of their claims at trial. In the Youngbloods' points and authorities in support of the order to show cause, the Youngbloods relied principally on the case of Nyman, et al., v. Desert Club, et al. (1952) 109 Cal.App.2d 63, 240 P.2d 37.) In Nyman, members of a country club filed suit against the club for, among other things, a declaration of rights, damages and injunctive relief. The trial court issued a preliminary injunction which restrained the club from interfering with the full use and enjoyment of the club facilities pending the determination of the case on the merits. The injunction was upheld on appeal as a proper exercise of the trial court's discretion.

The Nyman plaintiffs' claims were based upon their expulsion from life membership in the country club without cause, although they had agreed to be bound by club rules which provided, " 'Notwithstanding any other rules herein, concerning the right of the Club to terminate membership, the Club reserves the right to terminate a membership if deemed by it to be for the best interests of the Club.' " (Id., at p. 65, 240 P.2d 37.) The Nyman plaintiffs relied on a long line of cases which hold that club members have a personal right to enjoy club facilities for the life of the club, and may not be expelled without cause and/or proper notice and hearing.

The court in Curran v. Mount Diablo Council of the Boy Scouts (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 712, 195 Cal.Rptr. 325 reaffirmed those common law protections available to members of private associations. The court explained, "Under common law, relief was afforded to any individual expelled from a private association who could demonstrate (1) that the society's rules or proceedings were contrary to 'natural justice,' (2) that the society had not followed its own procedures, or (3) that the expulsion was maliciously motivated. [Citations.]

"This common law principle authorizing judicial review of expulsions from associations became part of California law before the turn of the century. [Citation.] Since then, this common law principle has been reiterated in an unbroken line of California decisions. [Citations.]

"Taken together, these decisions establish that the expulsion of a person from membership in a private unincorporated association is deemed 'arbitrary' and in violation of the common law right of fair procedure when the expulsion is substantively unreasonable, internally irregular, or procedurally unfair. [Citation.] Procedural fairness requires 'adequate notice of the "charges" ... [and] a reasonable opportunity to respond.' [Citation.] Furthermore, an expulsion cannot properly rest on a rule which is substantively capricious or contrary to public policy. [Citation.]" (Id., at p. 720, 195 Cal.Rptr. 325.)

The Curran court described the two-step analysis which courts apply in determining whether an expulsion was arbitrary. The court first determines if the procedure followed by the association is fair. Second, the court determines whether the expulsion rests upon a rule which is "substantively capricious or contrary to public policy." (Ibid.)

In Curran, the defendant contended that these common law protections apply only when the plaintiff was divested of a vested right in specific property. The court noted that in Ezekial v. Winkley (1977) 20 Cal.3d 267, 142 Cal.Rptr. 418, 572 P.2d 32, the California Supreme Court gave these cases a broader construction. The Ezekial court stated: "The underlying theme of these decisions, variously stated, is that membership in an association, with its associated privileges, once attained, is a valuable interest which cannot be arbitrarily withdrawn. Thus, they comport with the broader principle that one on whom an important benefit or privilege has already been conferred may enjoy legal protections not available to an initial applicant for the same benefit." (Id., at p. 273, 142 Cal.Rptr. 418, 572 P.2d 32, emphasis added.)

Mission Hills contends...