Major v. Miraverde Homeowners Association
CA · California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Three
Member win · other
What happened
The Rasmussens owned a Miraverde condo; after moving out they left elderly Ms. Major in the unit and continued using the project's single tennis court. In July 1989 the association adopted resident-only rules requiring a registered resident to reserve and be present—impossible given Major's disability—and fined the Rasmussens. The trial court denied a preliminary injunction. The Court of Appeal reversed as to the Rasmussens; Major's appeal became moot after she moved and her Unruh claim was dismissed on demurrer.
What the court (or agency) held
An association may not adopt rules that exceed the CC&Rs by stripping nonresident members of common-area recreational rights the declaration grants to all members. Miraverde's resident-only tennis/facility rules effectively terminated the Rasmussens' easement/right of enjoyment and were invalid whether or not labeled 'reasonable.' Denial of a preliminary injunction was reversed as to the Rasmussens (related fines under the invalid regime were implicated). Ethel Major's appeal was dismissed as moot.
Why this matters for members
This result is MIXED — a partial win, not a clean sweep on every claim. Uniform membership easements in the CC&Rs cannot be rewritten by 'reasonable' house rules that create resident vs nonresident classes. Rules that make enjoyment impossible for the remaining resident (or that terminate nonresident members' rights) are ultra vires relative to the declaration.
What the member did
Sought injunctive relief to stop enforcement of resident-only common-area rules that conflicted with CC&R membership rights.
Questions for the board
- Do the CC&Rs grant every record owner an easement of enjoyment in common recreational areas?
- Can resident-only guest rules be applied so that nonresident owners lose that easement in practice?
- Before fining owners for using facilities under new rules, was conflict with the declaration reviewed in writing?
Questions for a lawyer
- Is a preliminary injunction still available to stop fines based on ultra vires resident-only rules?
- How should Unruh or disability-access theories interact if a remaining resident cannot comply with guest-presence rules?
- What remedy scope covers past fines assessed under invalid rules?
Citation
Major v. Miraverde Homeowners Association, 7 Cal. App. 4th 618 (1992) (1992-06-16). California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Three. Outcome chip: MIXED. Flags: MIXED. Source: https://hallapproved.com/ca/cases/appeals/1992/2278969/
_General information, not legal advice. Outcomes turn on facts and current law._
General information, not legal advice. Outcomes turn on facts and current law.