And Now There Is A Split Between The 4th District, Div. 3, And The 2nd District, Div. 2. In Branches Neighborhood Corp. v. CalAtlantic Group, Inc., 26 Cal.App.5th 743 (2018), a homeowner's association began a construction defects arbitration with a developer without first getting a vote of 51% of its […]
Ordinarily, Denial Of A Motion To Compel Arbitration Is Appealable – But Not Here, And The Court Explains Why . . . Hayward Renaissance Walk Corporation v. Olson Urban Housing, LLC, A148372 (2/1 12/20/16) (Margulies, Humes, Dondero) (unpublished) does something satisfying that we like cases to do: it makes sense and imposes order on […]
The Key: Close Reading Of Provision Providing For Arbitration If Reference Became “Legally Unavailable.” The short but interesting opinion in Freeman v. Froehlich Signature Homes, Inc., F073374 (5th Dist. 12/15/16) (Levy, Gomes, Kane) (unpublished), merits close reading, because it reads like a finely-worded exam question. In a construction defect lawsuit, the trial court […]
Placement and Prominence Requirements Are Key To Implementing Statutory Disclosure And Knowing Waiver Objectives In Anna-Becky Redlich v. Reliance Management Group, Inc., Case No. A140313 (1/2 March 11, 2015) (Banke, Margulies, Dondero) (unpublished), the Court of Appeal agreed with the trial court that arbitration provisions between plaintiff homeowner, and defendants design firm and construction […]
Based On Holding of Pinnacle, Fourth District, Division 1 Reverses Order Of The Superior Court That Had Denied Developer’s Request To Arbitrate I posted on May 10, 2012 about Verano Condominium Homeowners Association v. La Cima Development, LLC, a 4th District Division 1 case, in which the Court of Appeal held, based on an […]
Pinnacle Museum Tower Association Dictates Result In Pinnacle Museum Tower Assn. v. Pinnacle Market Development (US), LLC, 55 Cal.4th 223 (2012), the California Supreme Court held that arbitration clauses in recorded CC&Rs, requiring that a homeowners association arbitrate construction claims against a developer, are enforceable. See my August 16, 2012 post about Pinnacle. (“Privity, […]
On August 16, 2012, we blogged about the California Supreme Court’s decision (actually, a majority, concurrences, and a dissent) in Pinnacle Museum Tower Association v. Pinnacle Market Development (US), LLC, 55 Cal.4th 223 (2012). That case held that covenants, conditions and restrictions of a recorded declaration created by a developer, which contain an arbitration […]
HOA Was Not Spared Fees Because It Initiated Arbitration, And Fees Clause Was Broad Enough To Cover Situation Plaintiff homeowners association, Lakeside Club Villas, Inc., settled with developer defendants, and therefore voluntarily dismissed an arbitration against defendant property management company. The management company brought a successful motion to obtain attorney fees. The HOA appealed, […]
Majority Opinion Draws Two Concurrences and One Dissent Arbitration is a matter of consent, right? Because there can be no meaningful consent between a developer that drafts covenants, conditions, and restrictions containing a provision requiring arbitration of construction disputes, and a homeowner’s association (HOA) that doesn’t yet exist, how can the HOA in […]
But Arbitration Provision Between Developer and Direct, Original Purchasers, Suffices To Compel Arbitration of Those Purchasers’ Claims Covenants, conditions and restrictions (CC&Rs) containing an arbitration provision often raise gnarly questions about enforceability. Is the provision enforceable, and if so, what group will be bound to arbitrate? Those issues were presented in the next […]