Gotch v. The Terraces at Canyon Hills Homeowners Assn.

Filed 6/9/06 Gotch v. The Terraces at Canyon Hills Homeowners Assn. CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Kirk H. Nakamura, Judge. Affirmed.

Feldsott & Lee and Martin L. Lee for Plaintiffs and Appellants.

Gaglione & Dolan, Robert T. Dolan and David M. Gillen for Defendant and Respondent.

Michael L. Gotch and Nancy Hauer (hereafter referred to collectively as the Plaintiffs unless the context indicates otherwise) sued their condominium homeowners association seeking a declaration that parking rules adopted by the homeowners association were in conflict with the recorded covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CC&Rs). The trial court found in favor of the homeowners association concluding the CC&Rs did not prohibit it from adopting the parking rules. Gotch and Hauer appeal contending the trial court did not properly interpret the CC&Rs. We disagree and affirm.

I

FACTS AND PROCEUDRE

Adoption of Parking Rules

The facts in this case are largely undisputed, and the matter is primarily one of contract interpretation. The defendant, The Terraces at Canyon Hills Homeowners Association (the Association) is a nonprofit mutual benefit corporation comprised of all homeowners in a condominium development (hereafter The Terraces or the development) located in Laguna Beach. The Plaintiffs are two individual condominium owners. The Terraces has 152 townhouse units each of which has attached and/or detached garages for parking. There are only approximately 25 unassigned common area parking spaces for the entire development, and there is no available parking for residents or their guests outside the confines of the development itself. Needless to say, the lack of adequate parking is a difficult issue for the community.

Each townhouse unit within The Terraces has two enclosed garage parking spaces, for that unit's exclusive use, by way of either an attached two-car garage, or an attached one-car garage plus another detached one-car garage located nearby designated in the recorded documents as being for the exclusive use of that particular unit. Because of a staggered design of the buildings, some of the garages (about one-third) have driveways long enough to park a car thereon without encroaching into the fire lane (i.e., road). To accommodate the dearth of available street parking and address the needs of households in which there are more than two vehicles, in 2003 the Association's Board of Directors (the Board) adopted the parking rules which are the subject of this litigation.

The parking rules permit the resident of a unit having a driveway long enough to park a car to use that driveway to park a third car provided the resident demonstrates both assigned garages are being used for parking of two cars. The Association painted white L-shaped limit marks on each long driveway delineating the permissible parking area. A resident seeking to park in his or her driveway must register all cars belonging to his or her unit with the Association and obtain and display a parking permit on the car being parked outside. If a resident's unit does not have a long driveway, and that resident is in need of a third parking space, the resident may similarly obtain a parking permit from the Association allowing the resident to use one of the common area parking spaces on a â€