FARBER v. BAY VIEW TERRACE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION
Filed 6/30/06; pub. order 7/28/06 (see end of opn.)
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION THREE
ALICIA FARBER, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. BAY VIEW TERRACE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, Defendant and Respondent. | G036069 (Super. Ct. No. 05CC02164) O P I N I O N |
___________________________________ ALICIA FARBER, Cross-complainant and Appellant, v. BAY VIEW TERRACE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, Cross-defendant and Respondent. | G036454 |
Appeal from judgments and post-judgment order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Kirk H. Nakamura, Judge. Affirmed.
Feldsott & Lee and Martin L. Lee for Plaintiff, Cross-complainant and Appellant.
Hickey & Petchul, David E. Hickey, Dirk E. Petchul, J. Stuart Duncan and David M. Gillen, for Defendant, Cross-defendant, and Respondent.
* * *
Alicia Farber appeals from judgments that dismissed her complaint and cross-complaint against Bay View Homeowners Association (Association) for lack of standing to sue, and from a post-judgment order awarding the Association attorney fees. Farber argues she does have standing and, even if not, the Association was not entitled to fees. We disagree and affirm.
* * *
In late 2003, Farber sold a condominium in Bay View Terrace, Costa Mesa, to David Stiffler. The condominium project is subject to a declaration of covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CC&R's). The Association, whose members are the unit owners, is responsible for enforcing the CC&R's and maintaining the structures within the condominium project.
After Stiffler moved into his unit, he discovered the roof leaked extensively and he was facing a $15,000 assessment by the Association to make repairs. Stiffler thought Farber had failed to disclose the leaks and should bear this expense. Farber took the position that it was the Association's duty to maintain the roof. She made demand on the Association to accept responsibility for the roof, and on Stiffler to agree to look only to the latter for recourse. Both refused and the instant action followed.
The complaint names as defendants Stiffler and the Association, and it recites the facts set out above. There is a single cause of action for declaratory relief. It alleges â€