"I'll Clean My Room Later, Mom"

By Thomas E. Miller, Esq.
The Miller Law Firm
February, 1999

Mr. Cunningham, a senior citizen suffering from Hodgkin's disease, liked to collect things. Board representatives of Fountain Valley Chateau Blanc Management Association visited homeowner Cunningham, inspecting his collectibles, which some perceived as junk, and told him that he violated the CC&Rs. Their visit was prompted because a roofing contractor could not perform the services the association hired him to do. The roofers could not maneuver their equipment in Cunningham's back yard because of debris. Neighbors had complained about the condition also. Following the visit to Cunningham's house, the association called the fire department out to issue a safety violation. The fire department declined to do so.

Nonetheless, in 1995, general counsel for the association wrote him a detailed letter about the inadequacies of his housekeeping, threatening to sue. The letter ordered him not only to clean up the exterior, but also to clean up the papers and books by his bed, and throw away clothing that he had not worn in the last five years. Only "standard" reading material was permitted to remain in place, according to the lawyer's letter. A lawsuit was ultimately filed by the association and settled.

After being sued, Mr. Cunningham cross-complained against the association, alleging invasion of privacy. The only issue for the jury was whether the association had acted unreasonably in its c6nduct toward this homeowner. The jury agreed with Mr. Cunningham, stating that they were "particularly galled that he was lectured about getting rid of old clothes, the way he kept his bed room and the kind of reading material he could have."

The presiding Judge Brickner of Orange County Superior Court disagreed with the jury. He thought the association was "totally reasonable" and granted a new trial.

In Cunningham v. Superior Court [Fountain Valley Chateau Blanc Management Association) (1998) 98 DailyJournal D.A.R. 11298], an appellate panel of judges said judge Brickner's granting of a new trial was really setting aside the jury's verdict. To set aside a jury verdict, a judge has to find that the jury "abused its discretion." The appellate panel did not find the jury abused its discretion and reinstated the jury's verdict, sending the case back to determine damages.

The ultimate lesson to association counsel and boards of directors is this: balance common sense with rules constructed for the common good of the community. Simply put, associations do not have the right to dictate to their membership concerning intimate details of their personal property, outside the realm of public safety hazards or public nuisances. The jury's verdict in Cunningham was rendered and reinstated apparently due to the detailed amount of control the association sought to impose on Mr. Cunningham. By attempting to micro-manage his affairs, the association overreached the scope of the covenants and restrictions, to which Mr. Cunningham might reasonably be held.

© Copyright 2001 The Miller Law Firm All rights Reserved.
If you experience problems or have questions, contact us at Info@ConstructionDefects.com.