Ruling Puts Board Above Law
Jan Hickenbottom’s analysis of the state Supreme Court’s ruling in Lamden vs. La Jolla Shores Clubdominium Homeowners Assn. (“Court Defers to Board in Decision-Making,” Condo Q&A;, Jan. 16) misses one of the key implications of the ruling.
Hickenbottom notes that the court’s ruling states that courts will defer to decisions of governing boards of homeowner associations “when those decisions are within the scope of authority granted in the association’s governing documents and the decisions are reached in a businesslike manner.”
The court’s decision effectively places homeowner associations above the law by allowing directors to subjectively determine without government oversight if they are in compliance with statutes such as the Davis-Stirling Act.
Simply because a board acts in a prudent, businesslike manner, it does not automatically follow that its actions are in compliance with the statute.
The California Supreme Court has made a mockery out of the Legislature’s aims when it enacted the Davis-Stirling Act 15 years ago to regulate common interest developments.
FREDERICK L. PILOT
President
Common Interest Consumer Project
Sacramento
Start your day right
Sign up for Essential California for news, features and recommendations from the L.A. Times and beyond in your inbox six days a week.
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.
