Watts v. Oak Shores Community Assn.

235 Cal. App. 4th 466, 185 Cal. Rptr. 3d 376, 2015 Cal. App. LEXIS 259

• Court: California Court of Appeal
• Decided: March 24, 2015
• Docket: B240337
• Status: Published

Opinion

Opinion

GILBERT, P. J.

Here we hold, among other things, that homeowners associations may adopt reasonable rules and impose fees on members relating to short-term rentals of condominium units.

Two owners of one lot in a common interest development and one of two owners of another lot brought an action challenging regulations and fees adopted by the homeowners association. The association cross-complained against all owners of both lots for fees and declaratory relief. The association prevailed on the complaint and cross-complaint. The trial court also awarded the association statutory attorney fees and costs on the complaint and cross-complaint. As we explain in the unpublished portion of this opinion, the judgment must be clarified so that the attorney fees awarded on the complaint are against plaintiffs only, and not against the cross-defendant who was not a plaintiff. In all other respects, we affirm.

FACTS

Oak Shores is a single-family residential common interest development. It is governed by the Oak Shores Community Association (Association). The Association is governed by a board of directors (Board). All property owners in the development are members of the Association.

The Association’s governing documents include its covenants, conditions and restrictions (CC&R’s) and its bylaws. The Board “may adopt, amend, or repeal Rules for the use, occupancy and maintenance of the Project; for the general health, welfare, comfort, and safety of Members; and to interpret and implement these CC&R’s, and establish penalties for violation of such Rules.” (CC&R’s, art. 6.2.) “In the event the Association undertakes to provide materials or services that benefit a particular Member, such Member in accepting the materials or services agrees to reimburse the Association for the costs incurred by the Association, which shall become a Special Assessment against the Member.” (Id.., art. 3.8.)

Oak Shores consists of 851 parcels of land. Six hundred sixty parcels are developed with single-family homes. Only about 20 percent, 125 to 150, of the homes are occupied by full-time residents. Approximately 66 absentee homeowners rent their homes to short-term vacation renters.

Ken and Joyce Watts and Lynda Burlison (collectively Watts) are absentee owners who rent their homes to short-term vacation renters. Watts filed a complaint against Oak Shores challenging fees charged and rules and regulations enacted by the Association. The challenge included a rule stating the minimum rental period is seven days; an annual fee of $325 imposed on owners who rent their homes; a rule limiting the number of automobiles, boats and other watercraft that renters are allowed to bring into Oak Shores; a mandatory garbage collection fee; boat and watercraft fees; building permit fees; and property transfer fees.

[[/]] *

Short-term Renters

The Association has a rule stating that the minimum rental period is seven days. The Association’s general manager testified that, based on his discussion with Board members, staff and code enforcement officers, as well as his review of gate and patrol logs, short-term renters cause more problems than owners or their guests. The problems include parking, lack of awareness of the rules, noise and use, and abuse of the facilities. Expert James Smith testified that, unlike guests, who are typically present with the owners, short-term renters are never present with the owner. Guests tend to be less destructive and less burdensome. Short-term renters require greater supervision and increase administrative expenses.

A $325 fee is charged to all owners who rent their homes. A 2007 study calculated each rental cost the Association $898.59 per year.

Watercraft

All short-term renters and guests who bring watercraft into Oak Shores pay a fee of $25 per day or $125 per week. Short-term renters and guests are limited to one boat or two personal watercraft. Owners and long-term renters do not pay such special fees and are not limited in the number of watercraft they can bring into Oak Shores.

Boats have a negative impact on the Association’s roads. There are also costs of maintaining the docks and parking lot used by the renters and increased costs for code enforcement.

Expert Smith testified that renters comprise only 8 percent of the people entering the gate, but renters bring in 37 percent of the boats.

Parking Restrictions

Association rules restrict parking in the lower marina lot to owners on weekends and holidays during the summer months. A lot not much further away is available to all.

Construction Permits

The Association charges a plan-check fee of $100 and a road impact fee of $1,600 for new construction. Expert Smith testified that heavy equipment used to construct homes places more wear on the roads and results in greater usage. It is appropriate to consider the need for reserves in determining the amount of the fee. The Board president testified that road resurfacing and repair are the basis for the fee.

Trash Collection Fees

The Association contracts with a trash collector. It passes the fees pro rata onto all owners of developed lots. The Association does not distinguish between full-time and part-time residences because it is too difficult to make that determination. It does not charge the owners of undeveloped lots because they do not produce trash.

Civil Code Former Section 1366.1 1

Former section 1366.1 (repealed by Stats. 2012, ch. 180, § 1 and reinstated with nonsubstantive changes as § 5600, subd. (b)) provided, “An association shall not impose or collect an assessment or fee that exceeds the amount necessary to defray the costs for which it is levied.”

David Levy and Travis Hickey are certified public accountants. Levy testified that the expenses generated by owners who rent short term far exceed the income generated from those owners. He analyzed fees and costs contained in the Association’s financial statements and reserve studies. He concluded the fees charged were reasonable and complied with the law. Levy also consulted with the Association’s former auditors. Levy and Hickey concluded that the fees were reasonable and did not violate former section 1366.1. Levy also testified the fees charged by comparable associations for similar activities were higher or equivalent to fees charged by Oak Shores.

Hickey testified that he is the Association’s former auditor. He studied the fees and consulted with another former auditor. He concluded the fees were fair, reasonable, and in compliance with the law. They do not exceed the costs for which they are levied. No association conducts a formal study to set fees. Nor does any association conduct time and motion studies. In fact, time and motion accounting is not possible.

Homeowners association expert Karen Conlon testified the Association met the standard of care for giving members notice of rule and fee changes. Fee increases can be enacted by adopting a budget for the year.

Swimming Pool

Release and Unclean Hands

[[/]]*

Ken Watts has never obtained a business license to rent his home, nor has he paid transient occupancy taxes since at least 2000. He owes at least $5,000 in back taxes. Watts has repeatedly mischaracterized his renters as guests in order to avoid applicable rental rules and regulations. Portions of his testimony at trial were “demonstrably false.” Throughout his tenure at Oak Shores, he has adopted a “rancorous, accusatory and obstructionist” style of interaction with Board members and staff. He has occasionally intimidated staff with bizarre and threatening behavior.

Judgment

The trial court found for the Association on the complaint. [[/]]* The court found that the Association’s rules and regulations are reasonable and comply with the Association’s governing documents and the law, and that the fees charged comply with former section 1366.1.

The trial court also found for the Association on the cross-complaint. It granted the Association an injunction ordering cross-defendants to abide by the rules and regulations. [[/]]*

DISCUSSION

[[/If

II.

Watts contends that the judgment is based on incorrect legal grounds.

Watts claims that the rule applying judicial deference to association decisions applies only to ordinary maintenance decisions. But in Lamden v. La Jolla Shores Clubdominium Homeowners Assn. (1999) 21 Cal.4th 249 [87 Cal.Rptr.2d 237, 980 P.2d 940] (Lamden), our Supreme Court stated, “ ‘Generally, courts will uphold decisions made by the governing board of an owners association so long as they represent good faith efforts to further the purposes of the common interest development, are consistent with the development’s governing documents, and comply with public policy.’ ” (Id., at p. 264, quoting Nahrstedt v. Lakeside Village Condominium Assn. (1994) 8 Cal.4th 361, 374 [33 Cal.Rptr.2d 63, 878 P.2d 1275].) It is true the facts in Lamden involve the association board’s decision to treat termites locally rather than fumigate. But nothing in Lamden limits judicial deference to maintenance decisions. Common interest developments are best operated by the board of directors, not the courts.

Watts’s reliance on Affan v. Portofino Cove Homeowners Assn. (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 930 [117 Cal.Rptr.3d 481] is misplaced. There, an owner sued the association for failing to properly maintain the sewer lines. In applying judicial deference, the court stated that the Lamden rule gives “deference to the reasoned decisionmaking of homeowners association boards concerning ordinary maintenance.” (Affan, at p. 940.) But there is no reason to read Lamden so narrowly. In fact, courts have given deference to board decisions that do not concern ordinary maintenance. Thus, for example, in Dolan-King v. Rancho Santa Fe Assn. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 965, 979 [97 Cal.Rptr.2d 280], the court gave deference to an association board’s decision denying an owner’s application for a room addition on aesthetic grounds.

Article 3.8 of the CC&R’s gives the Board broad powers to adopt rules for Oak Shores. Nothing in the article or elsewhere prohibits the Board from adopting rules governing short-term rentals, including fees to help defray the costs such rentals impose on all owners. The Board may reasonably decide that all owners should not be required to subsidize Watts’s vacation rental business.

That short-term renters cost the Association more than long-term renters or permanent residents is not only supported by the evidence but experience and common sense places the matter beyond debate. Short-term renters use the common facilities more intensely; they take more staff time in giving directions and information and enforcing the rules; and they are less careful in using the common facilities because they are not concerned with the long-term consequences of abuse.

In arguing the cost of short-term rentals must be borne by all members, Watts cites California Code of Regulations, title 10, section 2792.16, subdivision (a). That regulation provides, “Regular assessments to defray expenses attributable to the ownership, operation and furnishing of common interests by the Association shall ordinarily be levied against each owner according to the ratio of the number of subdivision interests owned by the owner assessed to the total number of interests subject to assessments.” Watts’s reliance on the regulation is misplaced for a number of reasons. First, the regulation applies to subdivision developers. Watts cites no authority that it also applies to continuing operations of a common interest development. Second, the regulation is qualified by the word “ordinarily.” (Ibid.) It clearly does not state an immutable rule. Third, the regulation applies to “[rjegular assessments.” (Ibid.) Watts cites no authority that it applies to the type of use fees at issue here.

Watts’s reliance on the Association’s articles of incorporation, article II, paragraph (d), is also misplaced. The paragraph under the heading “General Purposes” states in part: “To fix and establish the fees, dues and assessments that each member of this corporation shall pay to this corporation for the purpose of providing funds to carry out the community purposes and objects of this corporation, and to receive and collect such fees, dues and assessments.” Nothing in the paragraph provides that each member shall pay the same amount regardless of his or her activities on the premises. It does confirm, however, the power of the Association to impose fees as well as assessments. Thus, it confirms the power of the Association to impose the type of fees at issue here.

Watts’s reliance on Laguna Royale Owners Assn. v. Darger (1981) 119 Cal.App.3d 670, 685 [174 Cal.Rptr. 136] (Laguna Royale) is misplaced. There, a common interest development was built on a 99-year ground lease. The defendants purchased a unit in the development. Later, the defendants transferred undivided interests to three other families. No more than one family would use the unit at a time and each of the four families agreed to 13-week periods of exclusive use. The ground lease contained a provision prohibiting transfer of the unit without the development association’s approval. The association refused to approve the transfer on the ground, among others, that use by the four families would place an undue burden on the other owners in their use and enjoyment of their units so as to be inconsistent with their quiet enjoyment and maintenance of security. The trial court invalidated the assignments. The Court of Appeal reversed.

In reversing, the Court of Appeal affirmed that the association had the authority to enact reasonable regulations on the use and alienation of the condominiums. (Laguna Royale, supra, 119 Cal.App.3d at p. 682.) The court also determined that the reason given for refusing consent to the transfer was rationally related to the proper operation of the property and purposes of the association. (Id., at p. 686.) The court concluded, however, there was no evidence that consecutive use of the unit by the four families one at a time would be so disruptive as to interfere substantially with the other owners’ use and enjoyment or the maintenance of security. (Id., at p. 687.) The court pointed out that the association’s bylaws allowed leasing of a unit for 90 days or more, a use more intense than the 13 weeks’ exclusive use agreed to by each of the four families. (Ibid.)

If anything, Laguna Royale is favorable to the Association. It confirms the authority of the Association to enact reasonable regulations governing transfers so as to preserve the owners’ quiet enjoyment of the premises and the maintenance of security. There was simply no evidence in Laguna Royale that four 13-week periods of occupation by a single family would have a significant impact on the enjoyment of the premises by other owners or on security. Here there is more than ample evidence that short-term rentals have such significant impacts.

IV.

Watts contends the trial court erred in adopting the proportionality test in determining the reasonableness of the fees.

Former section 1366.1 prohibits an association from imposing or collecting “an assessment or fee that exceeds the amount necessary to defray the costs for which it is levied.”

At trial, Watts argued the Association was required to conduct time and motion studies to determine the correct amount of the fees. The trial court rejected Watts’s argument. In its statement of decision, the court stated the issue is whether “rough proportionality” between the fees and costs is sufficient to comply with the statute. The court found that the evidence established a “reasonably close” relationship between each contested fee and the cost it is intended to offset. The court concluded that relationship satisfied former section 1366.1.

Nothing in the language of former section 1366.1 requires the exact correlation between the fee assessed and the costs for which it is levied that Watts appears to demand. In some instances, such an exact correlation may be impossible to obtain. In other instances, the costs of studies necessary to obtain an exact correlation may be prohibitive, requiring the Association to add the costs to the fees. The “golden rule” for statutory interpretation is that where several alternative interpretations exist, the one that appears the most reasonable prevails. (Stewart v. Board of Medical Quality Assurance (1978) 80 Cal.App.3d 172, 179 [143 Cal.Rptr. 641].) The most reasonable interpretation of former section 1366.1 is that it requires nothing more than a reasonable good faith estimate of the amount of the fee necessary to defray the cost for which it is levied. Whether the court uses the term “roughly proportional” or “reasonably close,” the test has been met here.

In Foothills Townhome Assn. v. Christiansen (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 688 [76 Cal.Rptr.2d 516], a homeowners association imposed a special assessment of $1,300 against each owner. The assessment was to replenish the association’s reserve fund, which had been depleted paying for storm damage. The reserve fund could be used for purposes other than storm damage. An owner challenged the assessment as violating former section 1366.1. The court upheld the amount of the assessment on the ground that there was no showing that the usual reserve balance was excessive or that the amount of the assessment pushed the fund above its usual balance. (Foothills, at p. 694.) The court did not require a precise correlation between the amount of the assessment and the cost for which it was levied.

Watts argues that the Association should be bound by its admissions made during discovery that no studies to determine costs associated with the fees were conducted. The discovery to which Watts refers was interrogatories answered in February 2007. Trial began in April 2011. At trial, the Association produced evidence of studies that supported the fees. Watts points to no place in the record where the Association’s witnesses were asked to explain the apparent discrepancy between the interrogatory responses and their testimony. Nor does Watts cite any authority in support of the argument requiring the trial court to reject the Association’s evidence at trial. Watts has failed to carry the burden of showing error on appeal. (See In re Marriage of Ananeh-Firempong (1990) 219 Cal.App.3d 272, 278 [268 Cal.Rptr. 83] [judgment presumed correct, error must be affirmatively shown].)

Watts claims that the garbage fees were initiated January 1, 2001, without ever being adopted by the Association as required by former section 1357.100, subdivision (a) (repealed by Stats. 2012, ch. 180, § 1, now § 4340). But that statute simply defines “ ‘[operating rule.’ ” (Former § 1357.100, subd. (a).) It does not set forth any particular procedure for adopting any rule. Moreover, it defines operating rule as a “regulation.” {Ibid.) The garbage fee is not a regulation. It is simply a cost the Association passes through to the owners of the developed lots.

Watts claims the Board adopted or increased fees and fines by simply including them in the budget. But Watts cites no authority prohibiting the Board from adopting or increasing fees and fines in that manner.

In any event, Watts’s entire contention is based on a view of the evidence most favorable to themselves. Watts fails to cite the evidence most favorable to the judgment. That evidence includes the testimony of Karen Conlon, an expert on homeowners associations. She testified the Association met the standard of care on notice of rules and fee charges. Board members also testified that Board meetings agenda and minutes were posted on the Association’s Web site. Watts has waived the contention on appeal. (Foreman & Clark Corp. v. Fallon (1971) 3 Cal.3d 875, 881 [92 Cal.Rptr. 162, 479 P.2d 362].)

The attorney fee portion of the judgment is ordered modified as discussed in the unpublished portion of the opinion. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed. Costs on appeal are awarded to respondent and against all appellants.

Yegan, J., and Perren, J., concurred.

The petition of plaintiffs, cross-defendants and appellants for review by the Supreme Court was denied July 22, 2015, S226288.

* See footnote, ante, page 466.

1 All statutory references are to the Civil Code unless noted otherwise.

*

*

*