COUNTRY GLEN OAK PARK HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION V. GARRETT (2021) [ARCHITECTURAL VIOLATIONS]

In this case, the homeowners submitted an architectural application to construct a pool in their backyard, and the application was approved by the association’s architectural committee. However, it was soon discovered that, as part of the construction, the Garretts had moved a common area fence, altered a slope, and installed some of the pool equipment in the association’s common area beyond the Garretts’ property line. The association sent a cease and desist notice and other communications to the Garretts, and the board met with the Garretts on several occasions. The association then sued, seeking an injunction to have the Garrets remove the pool equipment and pad from the common area. The trial court  issued an injunction requiring the Garretts to remove the encroaching pool equipment from the common area; awarded the association $820 in compensatory damages for the damage the Garretts caused to the common area fence; issued a restraining order  against Mr. Garrett prohibiting him from confronting, intimidating, annoying,  harassing, threatening, challenging, provoking, or assaulting any member of the association or its managing agent; and (4) awarded the association $318,426 in attorney fees as the prevailing party.  The Garretts claimed the injunction was void under Civil Code section 5855, arguing that the board’s efforts to get them to comply with the CC&Rs was “discipline” within the meaning of section 5855(a). The court of appeal rejected this argument, stating that discipline involves the imposition of a punishment or sanction. The court also found that the association substantially complied with section 5855’s notice requirements because the Garretts had significant opportunities to meet with the board and had revoked agreements they had with the board to allow an expert onto their property. The court upheld the restraining order, finding that “Mr. Garrett engaged in a calculated campaign of intimidation of all whom he perceived to be obstacles to him getting what he wanted.” The court also rejected the argument that the association was not entitled to attorneys fees since it had refused to mediate before commencing litigation.  Apparently, the parties agreed on mediation but could not agree on a mediator and the court stated the association was not required to accept the free mediation service the Garretts proposed. The court further upheld the attorneys fees award, finding the principal issue was the pool equipment encroachment onto the common area.