Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Wittenber Vs Beachwalk Amicus by HOA Industry, Including CAI and 20 Law Firms
Wittenber Vs Beachwalk Amicus by HOA Industry, Including CAI and 20 Law Firms
Wittenberg
v.
in protecting members from criminal activity (Frances Tv. Village Green Owners
Association (1986) 42 Cal.3d 490). The second established standards for determining the
reasonableness of equitable servitudes (Nahrstedt v. Lakeside Village (1994) 8 Ca1.4th
361). The third established a policy of judicial deference related to decisions about
common area maintenance and repairs (Lamden v. La Jolla Shores Clubdominium HOA
(1999) 21 Cal.4th 249). The industry now needs clear standards related to homeowner
association elections.
an
association's ability to communicate with its membership about important issues related
to ballot measures and exposes it to potential litigation if it does.
Conflicts with Parallel Cases. A homeowners association is "a quasi-government
entity paralleling in almost every case the powers, duties, and responsibilities of a
municipal government." (Cohen v. Kite Hill Community Assn. (1983) 142 Cal.App.3d
642, 651; Damon v. Ocean Hills Journalism Club (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 468, 475.) In
parallel cases involving governments, this Court recognized that the public policy
favoring fair elections is not undermined by public officials making recommendations
about ballot measures. (Stanson v. Matt (1976) 17 Ca1.3d 209, 222; Vargas v. City of
Voters v. Countrywide Crim. Justice Coordination Com. (1988) 203 Cal.App.3d 529,
545.) The same rationale should apply to homeowner association boards.
CONCLUSION
If the appellate court's decision is not overturned, 50,000 homeowner association
boards will annually face potential litigation every time they send out election materials.
They will be afraid to provide important information to their membership for fear of
subjecting their associations to costly and contentious court battles. To restore stability to
common interest developments, reduce the risk of future litigation, and provide important
election guidelines to the industry, we ask that this Court grant review of Wittenberg v.
Beachwalk HOA.
David F. Feingold, Esq.
Sacramento, CA 95825
La Mesa, CA 91942
Howett Law
Senet LLP
Respectfully,
ra
aw
noke, Esq.
ffices of Laura Snoke
PROOF OF SERVICE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
At the time of service, I was over 18 years of age and not a party to this
action. I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. My
business address is 1801 Century Park East, Suite 2400, Los Angeles, CA
90067.
On August 23, 2013, I served true copies of the following document(s)
described as AMICUS CURIAE LETTER IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR
REVIEW on the interested parties in this action as follows:
SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST
BY MAIL: I enclosed the document(s) in a sealed envelope or package
addressed to the persons at the addresses listed in the Service List and
placed the envelope for collection and mailing,
business practices.
following
our
ordinary
name
. SERVICE LIST
Wittenberg v. Beach walk HOA
Court of Appeal Case No. G046891
Superior Court Case No. 30201100507078
William L. Buus
Appellants
Petitioner
Los Angeles, CA
California Court of Appeal