THE GLEN OF PACIFIC GROVE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION

Villa De Las Palmas (2004) subsequently promulgated and recorded use restrictions are entitled to the same judicial deference accorded covenants and restrictions in original declarations, that is, they are presumptively valid, and the burden of proving otherwise rests upon the challenging homeowner.

Saelzler  (2001) plaintiff alleged she was assaulted on defendants' premises by unknown assailants after she  [*767]  attempted to deliver a package to an apartment resident. Although plaintiff's evidence raised triable issues as to whether defendants owed her a duty of care and breached that duty by failing to provide additional security guards or functioning, locked security gates, her evidence was insufficient to show, as a triable factual issue, that defendants' asserted breach of duty actually caused her injuries. Plaintiff acknowledges that her assailants were never apprehended and their identity remains unknown to her. Accordingly, she is unable to prove they would not have succeeded in assaulting her if defendants had provided additional security precautions.

Golden Gateway Center (2001) Apartment owners can prohibit tenants association from distributing newsletter

Lamden (1999) Where a duly constituted community association board, upon reasonable investigation, in good faith and with regard for the best interests of the community association and its members, exercises discretion within the scope of its authority under relevant statutes, covenants and restrictions to select among means for discharging an obligation to maintain and repair a development's common areas, courts should defer to the board's authority and presumed expertise. Thus, we adopt today for California courts a rule of judicial deference to community association board decisionmaking that applies, regardless of an association's corporate status, when owners in common interest developments seek to litigate ordinary maintenance decisions entrusted to the discretion of their associations' boards of directors.

Nahrstedt (1994) whether a pet restriction that is contained in the recorded declaration of a condominium complex is enforceable against the challenge of a homeowner. Civil Code section 1354 requires that courts enforce the covenants, conditions and restrictions contained in the recorded declaration of a common interest development "unless unreasonable."

Frances T (1986) whether a condominium owners association and the individual members of its board of directors may be held liable for injuries to a unit owner caused by third-party criminal conduct.