COUNTRY SIDE VILLAS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION v. SUSAN IVIE








Filed 2/25/11; pub. order 3/24/11 (see end of opn.)









IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

COUNTRY SIDE VILLAS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. SUSAN IVIE, Defendant and Respondent.

H034702 (Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. CV125324)

Plaintiff and appellant, Country Side Villas Homeowners' Association (Country Side) appeals the trial court's order granting defendant and respondent Susan Ivie's special motion to strike pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16.[1] On appeal, Country Side asserts the trial court erred in granting the motion, because it was not brought within 60 days of the filing of the complaint, as required by section 425.16, subdivision (f). In addition, Country Side asserts the motion should not have been granted because Ms. Ivie cannot establish that the causes of action arise from protected activity, and Country Side can show a probability of success on the merits.


Statement of the Facts and Case
Appellant Country Side is a homeowners' association of the Country Side Villas, and is governed by a five person board of directors. Respondent Ms. Ivie is a homeowner in the Country Side Villas, making her a member of the homeowners' association.
This case arises over a dispute between appellant Country Side, a homeowners' association, and some of its members, including respondent Ms. Ivie. At issue between the parties is the question of whether individual homeowners, rather than Country Side, are responsible for repair and replacement of balconies and shingle siding on their units. Following an election of new members to Country Side's board in November 2007, Country Side hired a new manager and new legal counsel. The new counsel advised Country Side of its view that the association was responsible for the maintenance and repair of balconies and shingle siding, rather than the individual homeowners. This view was inconsistent with Country Side's previous practices.
Ms. Ivie objected to Country Side's new interpretation of the maintenance requirements, primarily because not all units contained balconies, and Country Side had not funded reserves to pay these expenses. In addition, Ms. Ivie believed that since one of the new board members owned a unit in need of siding repair, the decision to require Country Side to bear the expense was self-serving.
Ms. Ivie openly objected to Country Side's new interpretation of the maintenance requirements, and encouraged other members of the association to do the same. She advocated through a signature petition circulated among other homeowners that the new board be recalled.
Based on her concern about the ability of Country Side to pay for the maintenance of individual units, Ms. Ivie requested copies of the association's income and expense reports from its manager. Ms. Ivie made this request three times, and received no response. One month later, Ms. Ivie received a letter from Country Side's counsel stating that the financial documents were confidential, and she could only receive a copy of them if she signed a confidentiality agreement. Ms. Ivie refused to sign the confidentiality agreement, and never received the requested financial documents. Country Side's counsel threatened to sue Ms. Ivie if she continued to request the documents and refused to sign the confidentiality agreement.
On July 30, 2008, Ms. Ivie sent a â€