McKeith v. Rancho Cucamonga V HOA

Filed 3/15/06 McKeith v. Rancho Cucamonga V HOA CA4/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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 TWO

APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Ben T. Kayashima, Judge. (Retired Judge of the San Bernardino Sup. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) Affirmed.

Seebach & Seebach and Alice A. Seebach; Esner & Chang, Stuart B. Esner and Andrew N. Chang for Plaintiffs and Appellants.

Procter, McCarthy & Slaughter, Barry J. Reagan, Gabriele Mezger-Lashly, and Jeffrey J. Halfen, for Defendants and Respondents Haven View Homeowners Association and Bruce Ann Hahn.

Kinkle, Rodiger and Spriggs and Bruce E. Disenhouse for Defendant and Respondent The Rancho Cucamonga V Homeowners Association.

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiffs and appellants Malissa McKeith and Marylinda McKeith appeal from judgment following the trial court's granting of summary judgment in favor of defendants and respondents Haven View Homeowners Association (Haven View), Bruce Ann Hahn, and The Rancho Cucamonga V Homeowners Association (Rancho Cucamonga V).[1] The McKeiths contend that (1) triable issues of material fact exist as to whether defendants are liable in quantum meruit for the work the McKeiths performed and costs they incurred in assisting the two homeowners associations to fight development that would result in the removal of flood control infrastructure and expose the associations' members' property to a risk of flooding and debris flows; (2) the trial court erred in evidentiary rulings; and (3) summary judgment was improper as to the McKeiths' claim of breach of fiduciary duty against Hahn.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The McKeiths (and others not parties to this appeal) filed a complaint[2] alleging causes of action for negligence against Haven View, Rancho Cucamonga V, William Angel,[3] and Bruce Ann Hahn; breach of fiduciary duty against Hahn and Angel; and unjust enrichment, money paid, and quantum meruit against Haven View and Rancho Cucamonga V. Malissa McKeith, a lawyer, seeks to recover attorney fees in excess of $1.3 million for services provided by her law firm, Loeb & Loeb, allegedly for the benefit of the homeowners' associations. Marylinda McKeith, who is not a lawyer, seeks to recover $278,400 as the reasonable value of her time allegedly spent on behalf of the homeowners' associations. The McKeiths also seek to recover approximately $900,000 in out-of-pocket costs incurred.

Hahn, Haven View, and Rancho Cucamonga V brought motions for summary judgment. As to the issue of quantum meruit, Haven View and Rancho Cucamonga V argued that it did not retain plaintiffs to perform any services and therefore should not be responsible to reimburse plaintiffs for their time and expenses. As to the issue of breach of fiduciary duty, Hahn argued that the actions on which plaintiffs based their complaint occurred in 1990 before plaintiffs became homeowners to whom a fiduciary duty was owed, and they therefore lacked standing to raise breach of fiduciary duty claims. The trial court granted the motions.[4]

Although disagreeing with some of the details, the plaintiffs concede that the trial court's statement of decision is sufficient to provide this court with the background facts:

â€