Huntington Continental etc. Assn. v. JM Trust ( 2014 )


Menu:
  • FFF00623099 AFFnn Salisbury [Hearing Month][Hearing Day][Hearing Year]
    [Document Type]
    Filed 1/13/14
    CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION
    IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
    COUNTY OF ORANGE
    APPELLATE DIVISION
    HUNTINGTON CONTINENTAL
    TOWN HOUSE ASSOCIATION,
    INC.
    Plaintiff and Respondent,                 Case No. 2013-00623099
    Trial Court: 2011-00466754
    v.
    THE JM TRUST, etc. et al.,                                OPINION
    Defendants and Appellants.
    Appeal from a judgment of the Orange County Superior Court, West Justice
    Center, Robert H. Gallivan, Judge. (Retired Judge of the Orange Superior Court,
    assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) Reversed
    and remanded.
    Sam Walker, Esq. for Defendants and Appellants.
    Feldsott & Lee, Jacqueline Pagano and Martin L. Lee for Plaintiff and
    Respondent.
    1
    This case presents an issue on which this court has found little published
    authority: whether a homeowner’s association must accept and apply partial
    payments that reduce delinquent assessments owed but not any other amounts due,
    such as late fees, interest, and attorney’s fees and costs. We conclude the Davis-
    Stirling Common Interest Development Act (the Act) compels a homeowner’s
    association to do so.
    FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS BELOW
    Defendants and Appellants The JM Trust, dated January 1, 2005, Joseph A.
    Miner, trustee, and Joseph A. Miner, individually (collectively, Appellants) own
    residential real property in a development subject to assessments issued by their
    homeowner’s association, Huntington Continental Town House Association (the
    Association). From 2003 to the beginning of 2009, appellants timely paid the
    homeowner’s association assessments nearly every month. But Appellants failed
    to pay the assessment due on April 1, 2009, commencing a long string of
    delinquencies. On October 13, 2010, the Association sent a letter to Appellants
    notifying them their assessments were delinquent in the amount of $3,864.96.
    Receiving no response to the letter, the Association recorded a lien for the
    delinquent assessments against Appellants’ property.
    Two weeks later, the Association’s Board of Directors passed a resolution
    authorizing a lawsuit to foreclose on the delinquent assessment lien. The
    Association’s collection attorneys, Feldsott & Lee (Feldsott) followed up with a
    letter to Appellants on March 11, 2011, notifying them of the Association’s
    intention to institute foreclosure proceedings. The complaint in the present matter
    was filed on April 13, 2011, seeking foreclosure of the assessment lien and
    damages for account stated and open book account.
    2
    Shortly thereafter, Appellants requested and received from Feldsott an
    itemized statement of the sums due for delinquent assessments and other fees. In
    May 2011, Appellants sent a proposed payment plan and a $2,000 check to the
    Association, along with a request the Association refrain from foreclosing. The
    Association accepted the $2,000 check, and Feldsott formalized the proposed
    payment plan. Appellants, however, never signed the proposed plan. Appellants
    thereafter made two payments to the Association over the summer, totaling $1,500.
    On October 17, 2011, Feldsott notified Appellants they failed to make the
    September and October payments scheduled in the payment plan, and that their
    failure to make those payments within 10 days would lead to cancellation of the
    plan. Appellants responded by requesting a line-item accounting.
    On November 15, and December 12, 2011, Appellants tendered their regular
    monthly assessments of $188. Feldsott returned Appellants’ checks because
    Feldsott was “unable to accept partial payments.” On December 19, 2011, Feldsott
    provided Appellants a breakdown of delinquent assessments and fees.
    Shortly thereafter, Appellants tendered a $3,500 cashier’s check to the
    Association. On January 3, 2012, the Association’s President told Appellants he
    would have Feldsott apply the $3,500 payment and provide Appellants with an
    updated accounting. Feldsott provided the accounting on January 5, 2012. At the
    end of January, however, Feldsott returned Appellant’s $3,500 cashier’s check,
    again asserting they were “unable to accept partial payments.” Feldsott followed
    up with a new accounting on February 15, 2012.
    After a bench trial, the court awarded the Association foreclosure and
    damages of $5,715.93 against appellants, and entered judgment. Appellants timely
    filed a notice of appeal.
    3
    DISCUSSION
    Appellants contend the trial court erred in awarding judicial foreclosure and
    that substantial evidence did not support the damages award. We agree.
    The Association Was Not Entitled to Judicial Foreclosure of the Assessment
    Lien
    While the lawsuit was pending, Appellants tendered partial payments of all
    the assessments due, but some of those partial payments were rejected. Had the
    Association accepted Appellants’ tender of $3,500 in December 2011, Appellants’
    assessment arrearages would have been brought current1 and stopped the clock on
    the 12-month window for foreclosure (Civ. Code, § 1367.4, subd. (c)), although
    other amounts due would have remained unpaid.
    The trial court erred in ruling the Association was entitled to reject the
    tendered amounts. There is nothing in the Act precluding the acceptance of partial
    payments of delinquent assessments once litigation has been commenced. Civil
    Code section 1367.1 provides a comprehensive framework detailing how
    homeowner’s associations may secure delinquent assessments and related fees by
    way of lien against the homeowner’s separate interest in the property. Subdivision
    (b) allows for partial payments and delineates to what debts, and in which order,
    payments are to be applied. The plain language of subdivision (b) contemplates
    partial payments of amounts owed. There would be no need to explain how
    payments are to be applied to the various charges if the Legislature contemplated
    only full payments.
    1
    Although no party provided an accounting of assessments only, this court prepared one to assist it based upon the
    record of payments and billings found within Plaintiff’s Trial Exhibit 21 and Defendants’ Exhibits D, E, F, G, H,
    and K. That chart is attached to this opinion as Appendix A (see chart, post).
    4
    Although this subsection falls within a statute primarily describing pre-lien
    procedures, there is nothing that limits the provision to the pre-lien context.
    Moreover, the Legislature determined that Civil Code section 1367.1 “is
    subordinate to, and shall be interpreted in conformity with, Section 1367.4.” (Civ.
    Code, § 1367.1, subd. (n).) Section 1367.4 discusses procedures for foreclosing on
    assessment liens and sets limitations for when foreclosure is a permissible remedy.
    In adding section 1367.4, the Legislature intended to protect homeowners from
    being foreclosed upon for small sums of delinquent assessments. (Sen. Rules
    Com., Off. of Sen. Floor Analyses, Rep. on Sen. Bill No. 137 (2005-2006 Reg.
    Sess.) April 4, 2005, p. 1.) Allowing partial payments to pay down delinquent
    assessments after lien recordation would be consistent with the Legislature’s desire
    to limit the remedy of foreclosure to those circumstances where it appears to be the
    only viable option for collecting delinquent assessments. Here, the threat of
    foreclosure brought about compliance, except that the Association refused to
    accept and apply Appellants’ tendered payments. Because the Association was not
    entitled to judicial foreclosure of the assessment lien, we reverse as to the Third
    Cause of Action.
    Substantial Evidence Does Not Support the Damages Award
    In its post-trial brief, the Association conceded it had failed to apply a $500
    payment that Feldsott accepted. Although the Association deducted the $500
    payment from the total damages sought at trial, it did not adjust its interest accrued
    calculations for the unapplied payment, causing the damages awarded to be
    excessive and not supported by the evidence. We reverse and remand as to the
    First and Second Causes of Action for the trial court to determine damages
    consistent with this decision.
    5
    DISPOSITION
    The trial court’s judgment is reversed as to the Third Cause of Action, and
    reversed and remanded as to the First and Second Causes of Action for the trial
    court to determine damages consistent with this decision.
    _________________________
    Griffin, P.J.
    We concur:
    _________________________
    Servino, J.
    _________________________
    Wilson, J.
    6
    APPENDIX A
    (Assessments Only)2
    Bill Date          Monthly             Subtotal            Payments                    Total Due
    Assessment              (current +
    prior
    Due
    assessments
    due)
    4/1/08               $188                $188                 $03                         $188
    5/1/08               $188                $376                $188                         $188
    6/1/08               $188                $376                $188                         $188
    7/1/08               $188                $376                $188                         $188
    8/1/08               $188                $376                $376                           $0
    9/1/08               $188                $188                $188                           $0
    10/1/08               $188                $188                $188                           $0
    11/1/08               $188                $188                $188                           $0
    12/1/08               $188                $188                  $0                         $188
    1/1/09               $188                $376                $188                         $188
    2/1/09               $188                $376                  $0                         $376
    2
    Information taken from Plaintiff’s Trial Exhibit 21, and Defendants’ Exhibits D, E, F, G, H, and K.
    3
    Appellants sent in a payment, but the check was returned for insufficient funds.
    7
    3/1/09    $188   $564        $564    $0
    4/1/09    $188   $188        $0     $188
    5/1/09    $188   $376        $0     $376
    6/1/09    $188   $564        $0     $564
    7/1/09    $188   $752        $0     $752
    8/1/09    $188   $940        $0     $940
    9/1/09    $188   $1128       $0     $1128
    10/1/09   $188   $1316       $0     $1316
    11/1/09   $188   $1504       $0     $1504
    12/1/09   $188   $1692       $0     $1692
    1/1/10    $188   $1880       $0     $1880
    2/1/10    $188   $2068       $0     $2068
    3/1/10    $188   $2256       $0     $2256
    4/1/10    $188   $2444       $0     $2444
    5/1/10    $188   $2632       $0     $2632
    6/1/10    $188   $2820       $0     $2820
    7/1/10    $188   $3008       $0     $3008
    8/1/10    $188   $3196       $0     $3196
    9/1/10    $188   $3384       $0     $3384
    8
    10/1/10              $188              $3572               $0                        $3572
    11/1/10              $188              $3760               $0                        $3760
    12/1/10              $188              $3948               $0                        $3948
    1/1/11              $188              $4136               $0                        $4136
    2/1/11              $188              $4324               $0                        $4324
    3/1/11              $188              $4512               $0                        $4512
    4/1/11              $188              $4700               $0                        $47004
    5/1/11              $188              $4888              $2000                      $2888
    6/1/11              $188              $3076              $1000                      $2076
    7/1/11              $188              $2264              $500                       $1764
    8/1/11              $188              $1952               $0                        $1952
    9/1/11              $188              $2140               $0                        $2140
    10/1/11              $188              $2328               $0                        $2328
    11/1/11              $188              $2516               $05                       $2516
    12/1/11              $188              $2704               $06                       $2704
    1/1/12              $193              $2897               $0                        $2897
    2/1/12              $193              $3090               $0                        $3090
    4
    Lawsuit filed April 13, 2011.
    5
    Appellants tried to make a $188 payment this month.
    6
    Appellants tried to make a $188 payment this month, as well as submit a $3,500 cashier’s check, which would
    have fully paid off the back-due assessments.
    9
    3/1/12   $193   $3283        $0   $3283
    4/1/12   $193   $3476        $0   $3476
    5/1/12   $193   $3669        $0   $3669
    6/1/12   $193   $3862        $0   $3862
    7/1/12   $193   $4055        $0   $4055
    8/1/12   $193   $4248        $0   $4248
    9/1/12   $193   $4441        $0   $4441
    10
    

Document Info

Docket Number: JAD14-02

Filed Date: 1/16/2014

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/30/2014