A homeowners association (Association) brought suit against a homeowner/ member seeking injunctive relief and damages for the homeowners breach of an hoa pet restriction contained in the Associations governing documents. The hoa pet restriction permitted one dog per household and the homeowner was attempting to force the Association to allow him to have two dogs. The homeowner defended the case by contending that the hoa pet restriction was unreasonable and the Associations efforts to enforce it against him were arbitrary and capricious, and that the Association was treating him differently than other homeowners with respect to his violations and variances requested by homeowners.
In ruling in favor of the Association, the trial court determined that the Association had properly enforced the subject pet restriction and rejected the homeowners contentions that that the rule was unenforceable against him because it was not being applied in a uniform and fair manner and the Association was being selective, arbitrary, and discriminatory in its enforcement of the restriction against him. The homeowner appealed and on review, the appellate court found that the actions on the part of the Associations board of directors were based on reasonable and informed decision making and were entitled to judicial deference and that there was no basis to conclude that the Associations board acted arbitrarily or capriciously in its treatment of the homeowner. The appellate court also ruled that the Association was entitled to recover attorney fees that were incurred in connection with the homeowners appeal of the trial court judgment and remanded the matter to the trial court for a determination of the appropriate amount to be awarded to the Association.
UNPUBLISHED California Appellate Court decision (May 18,2015).
See case decision: Palms_v._Tempkin_(Cal._App.,