Harvey v. Landing Homeowners Association

In 2002 Miles Harvey (plaintiff), who was president of the board of directors (the board) (defendant) of the Landing Homeowners Association (the association) (defendant), discovered that condominium homeowners were using the vacant attic for storage. Harvey met with legal counsel, who advised that the board could not allow the residents to use the common area for storage because the use violated Article IV, § 12 of the condominium’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC & Rs). Article IV, § 12 provided that the board had the right to allow an owner to exclusively use common areas if the portion of use was nominal. Harvey relayed this information to the board and requested that the board issue notices of violation. The board declined to issue violations, and Harvey resigned as president. The board later held a meeting and voted to allow each homeowner to use a nominal area of the attic space for storage. The board determined that the homeowners could be granted permission to use 120 square feet per homeowner for storage space. Thus, the board called a meeting of condominium members to amend the association’s rules and regulations to provide that the attic area could be used for storage. The homeowners voted in favor of the amendment. In response, Harvey filed an action in California state court against the association, members of the board, and the residents using the space (defendants) (collectively, the board). Harvey claimed that the board had violated its authority under multiple sections of the CC & Rs. In addition to Article IV, § 12, Harvey cited Article II, § 2, which provided that the association, acting through the board, had the exclusive right to manage and operate the common area. Harvey also cited Article IV, § 4, which provided that the common area could not be used for storage purposes unless such area was designated as a storage area by the board. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the board. The court held that the board did not exceed its authority, because Article II, § 3 gave the board the authority to adopt reasonable rules and regulations that were not inconsistent with the CC & Rs. Further, the court held that the board’s decision was discretionary and afforded deference. Harvey appealed.