FRIEDEL V. SUN COMMUNITIES, INC., PARK PLACE COMMUNITY L.L.C., (11TH CIR. 2021) [EMOTIONAL SUPPORT ANIMALS]

A resident of a mobile home park suffered from "several chronic physical and mental impairments" and major depressive disorder. The Friedels say that because the resident’s "disabilities substantially limit one or more of his major life activities," he has a "handicap" under the FHA. He kept an aggressive golden retriever with a propensity for biting and alleged that it was his emotional support animal. After the dog attacked and injured another dog, which was not the first time the dog displayed aggressive behavior, the mobile home park ordered Freidel to remove the dog. He sued claiming the park was obligated by the federal Fair Housing Act to allow him to keep the dog as an emotional support animal. The court disagreed, finding that no reasonable accommodation would have eliminated or acceptably minimized the risk the dog posed to other residents. The risk to the community outweighed his claim for reasonable accommodation as a disabled resident. The court stated that the Friedels are not seeking a reasonable accommodation but simply their "preferred accommodation," which is not required under the law.

KELLY V. ST. DENIS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION. (2021) [RESTRAINING ORDERS]

The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s decision to grant a preliminary injunction that stopped the association from removing trees in a common area planter located outside plaintiff’s unit. The association sought to remove the trees in the common area planters because the planters were leaking and causing damage to the common area garage below and the cars and property located therein. Plaintiff sought the preliminary injunction, claiming the association was in breach of the CC&Rs because removal of the trees constituted a “capital improvement” and required a membership vote. She also claimed removal of the trees would cause a nuisance and she also alleged the board’s decisions to remove the trees were wrongfully conducted in executive session. The trial court found the planters were common area, that this was not a capital improvement, and that the association had the right and duty to maintain them. The court also found that the board had fulfilled the Lamden requirements as it acted consistent with the CC&Rs, pursuant to a reasonable investigation by employing arborists and water intrusion experts, in good faith and in the best interests of the members. However, the court determined that the interim harm (security and privacy concerns of the plaintiff) caused by allowing the trees to be removed outweighed the harm in not removing the trees. The court also determined that Lamden is not a defense to claims that the board violated the open meeting act, alleged by plaintiff, so plaintiff met the burden of showing a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the merits of one of her causes of action of her multiple cause of action complaint.

MAYFAIRE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION V. DEOL (2022) [ADR REQUESTS BEFORE FILING LAWSUITS]

In 2015, Mr. Deol’s home in the association burned down. Over two years later, Mr. Deol had not yet submitted plans or obtained approval from the association to rebuild his home. Due to Mr. Deol’s failure to rebuild his home in a timely manner, in 2017 the association filed a lawsuit and prevailed at the trial court compelling Mr. Deol to complete rebuilding his home within 90 days. The issue on appeal was whether the association’s failure to plead and prove that it had properly served Mr. Deol with a request to participate in alternative dispute resolution (ADR) before the lawsuit was filed as is required under Civil Code Sections 5925 et. seq. While the complaint had a Request for ADR attached, there was no evidence or documentation that the ADR request was properly served on Mr. Deol. The appellate court determined that the association had the burden to prove it had complied with the ADR statutes. Since the association did not prove the ADR request had been properly served, the trial court’s judgment was reversed.

SUNSET GREENS HOA V. SPAGENSKI (2021) [ENFORCEMENT OF CC&S-DOGS]

The Association sued Homeowners after their German Shepperd,  attacked neighbors' dogs (including one fatal attack) and neighbors within the Association's community. The Association alleged two alternative theories for relief: breach of governing documents based on the parties' covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CC&R's) and nuisance. The Association asked the trial court to enforce the Association Board's decision to remove the dog, to permanently enjoin the Homeowners from keeping the dog within the Community, and to award attorney fees and costs. The association’s CC&Rs prevented owners from keeping a pet “which interferes with, or has a reasonable likelihood of interfering with, the rights of any Owner or other occupant of a Lot to the peaceful and quiet enjoyment of the Lot.” The trial court granted the Association's motion for summary judgment after determining: (1) the Association established that the Homeowners breached the CC&R's; (2) the undisputed evidence demonstrated an aggressive dog within the Community creates a condition interfering with the comfortable enjoyment of life or property and violations of the applicable CC&R's automatically established the existence of a nuisance; and (3) the CC&R's vested the Board with the discretion to enforce the CC&R's, to declare the dog a nuisance, and to require the dog’s removal from the Community. The court entered judgment for the Association and permanently enjoined the dog from living in the Community. The Appellate court affirmed the judgment and concluded that the trial court properly granted summary judgment because the Association established by undisputed material facts that the Homeowners violated the CC&R's, the violations constituted a nuisance, and the Association was entitled to a permanent injunction.