(2021) 4th Dist. August 2021 (UNPUBLISHED) A community association, aided by supportive CC&R provisions, may declare a vicious dog with a history of attacks to be a nuisance and require its removal from the community. The board need not consider abatement or the likelihood of future harm in determining whether a breach occurred or in exercising its enforcement discretion. Please note that as this is an unpublished court opinion, under California Rules of Court, Rule 8.115, it cannot be cited or relied on by a court or a party in any other action.
(2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 1178 California 4th District Court of Appeal upholds an architectural committee's adoption of architectural standards that exceeded the standards contained in the association's CC&Rs. In addition, the Court ruled that an architectural committee does not have the authority to enact an attorney's fees provision in its rules if none exist in the association's CC&Rs. The Court noted that architectural rules should seek to clarify existing language in CC&Rs instead of inserting new provisions that bind homeowners without a vote of the membership.
(2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 965 The burden of proof is on the challenging homeowner to prove the unreasonableness of an unrecorded restriction. A homeowner challenging the architectural decision of an association in court has the burden of proving that the association's decision was unreasonable and arbitrary under the circumstances. A decision is unreasonable and arbitrary when it bears no rational relationship to the protection, preservation, operation or purpose of the affected land. Unrecorded use restrictions (e.g., rules, guidelines, etc.) may not be given a presumption of reasonableness, but evaluated under a straight reasonableness test. See also, Clark v. Rancho Santa Fe Association (1989) 216 Cal.App.3d 606.