Villa De Las Palmas Homeowners Assn. v. Terifaj.htm

VILLA DE LAS PALMAS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. PAULA TERIFAJ, as Trustee, etc., Defendant and Appellant.

S109123

SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA

33 Cal. 4th 73; 90 P.3d 1223; 14 Cal. Rptr. 3d 67; 2004 Cal. LEXIS 4839; 2004 Daily Journal DAR 7037

June 14, 2004, Filed

PRIOR HISTORY: Superior Court of Riverside County, No. INC 013318, Christopher J. Sheldon, Judge. Court of Appeal, Fourth Dist., Div. Two, No. E029449,

Villa De Las Palmas Homeowners Assn. v. Terifaj, 99 Cal. App. 4th 1202, 121 Cal. Rptr. 2d 780, 2002 Cal. App. LEXIS 4361 (Cal. App. 4th Dist., 2002)

DISPOSITION: Judgment of the Court of Appeal affirmed.

CASE SUMMARY

PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Based on an amended declaration, plaintiff homeowners association filed an amended complaint for injunctive and declaratory relief and nuisance, along with a motion for preliminary injunction, to compel defendant owner to abide by a no-pet rule. The trial court ruled in favor of the association and granted a permanent injunction. The Court of Appeal of California, Fourth Appellate District, Division Two, affirmed. The owner petitioned for review.

OVERVIEW: Pursuant to the authority granted in the declaration, the association had adopted a rule prohibiting pets. The rule was in existence when the owner purchased her condominium unit. Subsequently, the association adopted and recorded an amended declaration, which added a no-pet restriction. The association brought an action against the owner due to the owner's continued violation of the restriction. The trial court found the covenants and restrictions to be enforceable equitable servitudes and granted a permanent injunction. The lower appellate court affirmed. On further review, the court affirmed the judgment. The association was subject to the provisions of the Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 1350 et seq. The court concluded that under the plain and unambiguous language of Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1354(a) and 1355(b), use restrictions in amended declarations recorded subsequent to the challenging owner's purchase of a condominium unit were binding on that owner, were enforceable via injunctive relief under Cal. Civ. Code § 1354(a), and were entitled to the same judicial deference given use restrictions recorded prior to the owner's purchase.

OUTCOME: The court affirmed the judgment.

CORE TERMS: declaration, homeowner, common interest development, recorded, covenant, enforceable, equitable, servitude, condominium, Common Interest Development Act, pet, no-pet, common interest, amended declaration, reasonableness, effective, promulgated, separate interest, challenging, proposed amendment, injunctive relief, bind, dog, recorded prior, irrespective, amend, voted, deferential, original declaration, board of directors

LexisNexis(R) Headnotes Hide Headnotes

Real & Personal Property Law > Condominiums, Cooperatives & Homeowner Associations > Homeowner Associations

^HN1

Cal. Civ. Code § 1354(a) provides that covenants and restrictions in the declaration of a common interest development shall be enforceable equitable servitudes, unless unreasonable. Cal. Civ. Code § 1355(b), in turn, provides that the declaration may be amended if certain procedures are followed. The Supreme Court of California has construed Cal. Civ. Code § 1354(a) and held that covenants and restrictions in the declaration are enforceable unless they are wholly arbitrary, violate a fundamental public policy, or impose a burden on the use of affected land that far outweighs any benefit. More Like This Headnote

Real & Personal Property Law > Condominiums, Cooperatives & Homeowner Associations > Homeowner Associations

^HN2

Under the plain and unambiguous language of Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1354(a) and 1355(b), use restrictions in amended declarations recorded subsequent to a challenging homeowner's purchase of a condominium unit are binding on that homeowner, are enforceable via injunctive relief under Cal. Civ. Code § 1354(a), and are entitled to the same judicial deference given use restrictions recorded prior to the homeowner's purchase. More Like This Headnote

Real & Personal Property Law > Condominiums, Cooperatives & Homeowner Associations > Homeowner Associations

^HN3

Under the Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 1350 et seq., a common interest development is created whenever a separate interest coupled with an interest in the common area or membership in an association is, or has been, conveyed and a declaration, a condominium plan, if one exists, and a final or parcel map are recorded. Cal. Civ. Code § 1352. Common interest developments are required to be managed by a homeowners association, Cal. Civ. Code § 1363(a), defined as a nonprofit corporation or unincorporated association created for the purpose of managing a common interest development, Cal. Civ. Code § 1351(a), which homeowners are generally mandated to join. More Like This Headnote

Real & Personal Property Law > Condominiums, Cooperatives & Homeowner Associations > Homeowner Associations

^HN4

The Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 1350 et seq., applies to common interest developments in existence prior to its enactment. Cal. Civ. Code § 1352. More Like This Headnote

Real & Personal Property Law > Condominiums, Cooperatives & Homeowner Associations > Homeowner Associations

^HN5

The Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 1350 et seq., contains a fairly extensive definitions section, defining "governing documents" and "declaration." The declaration is defined as the document, however denominated, which contains the information required by Cal. Civ. Code § 1353. Cal. Civ. Code § 1351(h). Cal. Civ. Code § 1353 requires that declarations recorded on or after January 1, 1986, contain certain information, including the development's covenants and restrictions. The governing documents encompass a broader category of documents, including the declaration and any other documents, such as bylaws, operating rules of the association, articles of incorporation, or articles of association, which govern the operation of the common interest development or association. Cal. Civ. Code § 1351(j). More Like This Headnote

Real & Personal Property Law > Condominiums, Cooperatives & Homeowner Associations > Homeowner Associations

^HN6

A declaration is often referred to as the common interest development's constitution and establishes a system of governance. Importantly, it contains the development's covenants and restrictions, which are enforceable equitable servitudes, unless unreasonable. Cal. Civ. Code § 1354(a). Several provisions of the Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 1350 et seq., allow for the amendment of the declaration. Cal. Civ. Code § 1355(b) provides in part: Except to the extent that a declaration provides by its express terms that it is not amendable, in whole or in part, a declaration which fails to include provisions permitting its amendment at all times during its existence may be amended at any time. More Like This Headnote

Governments > Legislation > Interpretation

^HN7

A court's primary task in construing a statute is to ascertain the intent of the legislature. The court makes this determination by looking to the words used in the statute and giving them their plain meaning. If there is no ambiguity in the language of the statute, then the legislature in presumed to have meant what it said. More Like This Headnote

Real & Personal Property Law > Condominiums, Cooperatives & Homeowner Associations > Homeowner Associations

^HN8

Under the Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 1350 et seq., a common interest development may amend its declaration pursuant to the provisions of the declaration itself or under the provisions of the Act. When a declaration is silent on whether it may be amended, Cal. Civ. Code § 1355(b) provides that it may be amended at any time. Use restrictions added to a declaration by amendment bind not only subsequent purchasers, but current homeowners as well. More Like This Headnote

Real & Personal Property Law > Condominiums, Cooperatives & Homeowner Associations > Homeowner Associations

^HN9

See Cal. Civ. Code § 1355(b).

Real & Personal Property Law > Condominiums, Cooperatives & Homeowner Associations > Homeowner Associations

^HN10

Plainly read, any amendment duly adopted under Cal. Civ. Code § 1355(b) is effective against all homeowners, irrespective of when the owner acquired title to the separate interest or whether the homeowner voted for the amendment. More Like This Headnote

Real & Personal Property Law > Condominiums, Cooperatives & Homeowner Associations > Homeowner Associations

^HN11

A requirement for upholding covenants and restrictions in common interest developments is that they be uniformly applied and burden or benefit all interests evenly. More Like This Headnote

Real & Personal Property Law > Condominiums, Cooperatives & Homeowner Associations > Homeowner Associations

^HN12

Use restrictions are an inherent part of any common interest development and are crucial to the stable, planned environment of any shared ownership arrangement. Such restrictions may preclude alteration of building exteriors, limit the number of persons that can occupy each unit, and place limitations on -- or prohibit altogether -- the keeping of pets. A homeowners association, through an elected board of directors, is empowered to enact new rules governing the use and occupancy of property within the development. Anyone who buys a unit in a common interest development with knowledge of its owners association's discretionary power accepts the risk that the power may be used in a way that benefits the commonality but harms the individual. More Like This Headnote

Governments > Legislation > Interpretation

^HN13

A court may observe that available legislative history buttresses a plain language construction. More Like This Headnote

Real & Personal Property Law > Condominiums, Cooperatives & Homeowner Associations > Homeowner Associations

^HN14

See Cal. Civ. Code § 1354(a).

Real & Personal Property Law > Condominiums, Cooperatives & Homeowner Associations > Homeowner Associations

^HN15

Cal. Civ. Code § 1354(a) governs enforcement of an amendment to a declaration because that section does not distinguish between an original and an amended declaration. The legislature, by using expansive language in § 1354(a), intended all covenants and restrictions in the declaration to be enforceable against all homeowners under that provision. Only if the covenant or restriction in question is unreasonable will it be unenforceable under § 1354(a). Accordingly, § 1354(a) applies to enforcement actions relating not only to the covenants and restrictions in the original declaration, but also covenants and restrictions in any declaration. More Like This Headnote

Real & Personal Property Law > Condominiums, Cooperatives & Homeowner Associations > Homeowner Associations

^HN16

Covenants and restrictions in recorded declarations of common interest developments are presumptively reasonable and are enforceable unless they are wholly arbitrary, violate a fundamental public policy, or impose a burden on the use of affected land that far outweighs any benefit. More Like This Headnote

Real & Personal Property Law > Condominiums, Cooperatives & Homeowner Associations > Homeowner Associations

^HN17

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. More Like This Headnote

Governments > Legislation > Interpretation

^HN18

It is a court's task to construe, not to amend, a statute. More Like This Headnote

Real & Personal Property Law > Condominiums, Cooperatives & Homeowner Associations > Homeowner Associations

^HN19

Prohibiting pets is rationally related to health, sanitation and noise concerns legitimately held by residents of common interest developments. More Like This Headnote

Show Headnotes / Syllabus

COUNSEL: Law Office of Russell P. Nowell and Russell P. Nowell for Defendant and Appellant.

Jeff Thom for California Council of the Blind as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Appellant.

Fiore, Racobs & Powers, Peter E. Racobs and Margaret G. Wangler for Plaintiff and Respondent.

JUDGES: Moreno, J., with George, C. J., Kennard, Baxter, Werdegar, Chin, and Brown, JJ., concurring.

OPINIONBY: MORENO

OPINION: [***68] [**1224] MORENO, J.--Civil Code section 1354, subdivision (a), n1 ^HN1

provides that covenants and restrictions in the declaration of a common interest development "shall be enforceable equitable servitudes, unless unreasonable." Section 1355, subdivision (b), in turn, provides that the declaration may be amended if certain procedures are followed. In Nahrstedt v. Lakeside Village Condominium Assn. (1994) 8 Cal.4th 361 [33 Cal. Rptr. 2d 63, 878 P.2d 1275] (Nahrstedt), we construed subdivision (a) of section 1354 and held that covenants and restrictions in the declaration are enforceable "unless they are wholly arbitrary, violate a fundamental public policy, or impose a burden on the use of affected land that far outweighs any benefit." (Nahrstedt, supra, at p. 382.) The use restriction in that case, a no-pet restriction, was included in a condominium development's originating declaration and recorded prior to the conveyance of any of the units.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Footnotes - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

n1 All further statutory references are to the Civil Code.

- - - - - - - - - - - - End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

The questions we confront in this case are whether use restrictions added to a declaration through an amendment and recorded after a homeowner has purchased an individual unit bind such an owner, and whether the rule of Nahrstedt--that restrictions in a development's declaration are presumed to [*79] be reasonable and are enforceable unless they are arbitrary, impose an undue burden on [**1225] the property or violate fundamental public policy (Nahrstedt, supra, 8 Cal.4th 361, 386 [33 Cal. [***69] Rptr.2d 63, 878 P.2d 1275])--applies to subsequently enacted restrictions. We are also called upon to decide whether the trial court abused its discretion in awarding attorney fees to the homeowners association.

^CA(1)

(1) We conclude that ^HN2

under the plain and unambiguous language of sections 1354, subdivision (a), and 1355, subdivision (b), use restrictions in amended declarations recorded subsequent to a challenging homeowner's purchase of a condominium unit are binding on that homeowner, are enforceable via injunctive relief under section 1354, subdivision (a), and are entitled to the same judicial deference given use restrictions recorded prior to the homeowner's purchase. We also conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding attorney fees to the homeowners association as the prevailing party.

I. Facts and Procedural History

Villa De Las Palmas is a relatively small condominium development consisting of 24 units located in a single L-shaped building. There are 12 units each on the top and bottom levels, and all units have either a small patio or a deck, with common walls separating them. The walls, described as "pony walls," initially extend from the unit at full height, and then slope down. Many owners, including defendant Paula Terifaj, do not make Villa De Las Palmas, which is located in Palm Springs, their primary residence, but visit only periodically or seasonally.

The individual condominium units were conveyed to the original grantees in 1962 by recorded grant deeds that contained the development's covenants, conditions, and restrictions, also commonly known as CC & R's. Pursuant to the 1962 deed (Declaration), all grantees were required to execute a management agreement and "covenant and agree to observe, perform and abide by any and all lawful by-laws, rules, regulations and conditions with respect to the use and occupancy of said premises which may from time to time be adopted or prescribed by the Board of Governors constituted in said Management Agreement." Failure to abide by any covenant or restriction in the Declaration could result in forfeiture, and "any owner or occupant of any apartment upon said premises may bring legal action for injunction and/or damages against said defaulting owner ... ." The Declaration further provided that "[t]he benefits and obligations of this deed shall inure to and be binding upon the heirs ... and assigns of the respective parties hereto."

Pursuant to the authority granted in the Declaration, the Villa De Las Palmas Homeowners Association (the Association) adopted a rule prohibiting [*80] pets. The unrecorded rule provided: "Pets of any kind are forbidden to be kept in the apartment building or on the grounds at any time." While the exact date of the adoption of the no-pet rule is unknown, it is undisputed that it was in existence when Terifaj purchased her unit. Terifaj, a veterinarian who purchased her unit in 1995, did not receive a written copy of the rule prohibiting pets, but she admitted at trial that she was aware of the no-pet rule when she purchased her unit.

Despite the prohibition on pets, from the time Terifaj purchased her unit until 1998, she visited her unit with her dog Lucy. When Lucy died in 1998, Terifaj acquired another dog, a female boxer, and brought her to the property. Terifaj attempted to have the Association amend the no-pet rule at the Association's 1996 and 2000 general meetings, but was unsuccessful.

The Association repeatedly warned Terifaj that she was violating the rule prohibiting pets on the property and fined her accordingly. Terifaj, however, was undeterred [***70] and continued to bring her dog to the development. In response, in August 1999, the Association filed a complaint for injunctive and declaratory relief and nuisance, along with a motion for preliminary injunction, to compel Terifaj to abide by the no-pet rule. The trial court denied the motion for preliminary injunction in October 1999, ruling that it was not convinced the Association would prevail on the merits and that irreparable injury was not evident. The court ordered the case to nonbinding arbitration with a March 8, 2000, completion date.

[**1226] In the interim between the denial of the preliminary injunction and the completion of arbitration, the members of the Association voted to amend the Declaration. In January 2000, the Association adopted and recorded the Amended and Restated Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (Amended Declaration), which added a no-pet restriction, providing: "No pets or animals of any kind, including without limitation, dogs, cats, birds, livestock, reptiles or poultry, may be kept or permitted in any Apartment or anywhere on the Property." The Amended Declaration further provides that violations of the covenants and restrictions contained in the Amended Declaration are nuisances, and that such violations may be enjoined.

Based on the recorded Amended Declaration, the Association filed an amended complaint alleging the same causes of action and seeking the same relief as the original complaint. Following a bench trial, the trial court ruled in favor of the Association on all causes of action. It found the covenants and restrictions in the Amended Declaration to be enforceable equitable servitudes, granted a permanent injunction against any further violation of the no-pet restriction, and found the violation to be a nuisance. The court awarded the Association $ 15,000 in attorney fees. [*81]

The Court of Appeal affirmed. It concluded that section 1354 "[o]n its face ... applies to any declaration, regardless of when it is adopted and recorded." Because the no-pet restriction was in the recorded Amended Declaration, it therefore constituted an equitable servitude under section 1354, subdivision (a). Relying on Nahrstedt, which the Court of Appeal found governed review of the pet restriction, the court held the restriction was not unreasonable.

We granted Terifaj's petition for review.

II. Discussion

As a condominium project, Villa De Las Palmas is a common interest development subject to the provisions of the Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act (the Davis-Stirling Act or the Act). (§ 1350 et seq.) The Davis-Stirling Act, enacted in 1985 (Stats. 1985, ch. 874, § 14, pp. 2774-2786), consolidated the statutory law governing condominiums and other common interest developments. ^HN3

^CA(2)

(2) Under the Act, a common interest development is created "whenever a separate interest coupled with an interest in the common area or membership in [an] association is, or has been, conveyed" and a declaration, a condominium plan, if one exists, and a final or parcel map are recorded. n2 (§ 1352.) Common interest developments are required to be managed by a homeowners association (§ 1363, subd. (a)), defined as "a nonprofit corporation or unincorporated association created for the purpose of managing a common interest development" (§ 1351, subd. (a)), which [***71] homeowners are generally mandated to join (Nahrstedt, supra, 8 Cal.4th at p. 373).

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Footnotes - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

n2 Although Villa De Las Palmas was created prior to the enactment of the Davis-Stirling Act, ^HN4

the Act applies to common interest developments in existence prior to its enactment. (§ 1352; Nahrstedt, supra, 8 Cal.4th at p. 378, fn. 8.)

- - - - - - - - - - - - End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

^HN5

The Act contains a fairly extensive definitions section, defining as relevant here "governing documents" and "declaration." The declaration is defined as "the document, however denominated, which contains the information required by section 1353." (§ 1351, subd. (h).) Section 1353 requires that declarations recorded on or after January 1, 1986, contain certain information, including the development's covenants and restrictions. The governing documents encompass a broader category of documents, including "the declaration and any other documents, such as bylaws, operating rules of the association, articles of incorporation, or articles of association, which govern the operation of the common interest development or association." (§ 1351, subd. (j).)

^HN6

^CA(3)

(3) The declaration is often referred to as the development's constitution (see Rest.3d Property, Servitudes, § 6.10, com. a, p. 196; 1 Hanna & Van [*82] Atta, Cal. Common Interest Developments: Law and Practice (2003) § 22:2, p. 1325) and "establish[es] a system of governance." (Villa Milano Homeowners Assn. v. Il Davorge (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 819, 827 [**1227] [102 Cal. Rptr. 2d 1].) Importantly, it contains the development's covenants and restrictions, which are "enforceable equitable servitudes, unless unreasonable." (§ 1354, subd. (a).) Several provisions of the Act allow for the amendment of the declaration. Of particular relevance here is section 1355, subdivision (b) (hereafter section 1355(b)), which provides in relevant part: "Except to the extent that a declaration provides by its express terms that it is not amendable, in whole or in part, a declaration which fails to include provisions permitting its amendment at all times during its existence may be amended at any time." n3

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Footnotes - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

n3 In addition to section 1355(b), the Davis-Stirling Act provides several methods for amending the declaration. Section 1355, subdivision (a), provides that a declaration may be amended pursuant to its own amendment provisions or pursuant to other provisions of the Act; section 1356 allows a homeowners association to petition the court for approval of an amendment if the declaration provides for a larger majority than the association is able to muster, provided at least 50 percent of the owners vote in favor of the proposed amendment; section 1355.5 provides for the deletion of certain developer-oriented provisions; section 1357 provides for the extension of a termination date set forth in a declaration.

- - - - - - - - - - - - End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Terifaj's argument is somewhat ambiguous with respect to enforcement of restrictions contained in amended declarations. She appears to argue that such restrictions are entirely unenforceable in any manner, but also maintains that such restrictions are not enforceable pursuant to section 1354, subdivision (a), because they do not meet the requirements of equitable servitudes. Since her argument is vague, we address both contentions.

Because we are construing provisions in the Davis-Stirling Act, we briefly recite the rules of statutory construction that will guide our decision. ^HN7

^CA(4)

(4) Our primary task in construing a statute is to ascertain the intent of the Legislature. (Peracchi v. Superior Court (2003) 30 Cal.4th 1245, 1253 [135 Cal. Rptr. 2d 639, 70 P.3d 1054].) We make this determination by looking to the words used in the statute and giving them their plain meaning. (Smith v. Rae-Venter Law Group (2002) 29 Cal.4th 345, 358 [127 Cal. Rptr. 2d 516, 58 P.3d 367].) " '... "If there is no ambiguity in the language of the statute, 'then the Legislature in presumed to have meant what it said.' " ' " (Ibid.) [***72]

A.

We must first decide whether a use restriction contained in an amended declaration is enforceable against a homeowner who acquired his or her separate interest before the challenged amendment was adopted and recorded. ^CA(5)

(5) As noted above, ^HN8

under the Davis-Stirling Act, a common interest [*83] development may amend its declaration pursuant to the provisions of the declaration itself or under the provisions of the Act. When a declaration is silent on whether it may be amended, section 1355(b) provides that it may be amended at any time. For the following reasons, we conclude that use restrictions added to a declaration by amendment bind not only subsequent purchasers, but current homeowners as well.

This conclusion follows from the plain language of section 1355(b), which provides in part: "For purposes of this subdivision, an amendment is only effective after (1) the proposed amendment has been distributed to all of the owners of separate interests in the common interest development by first-class mail postage prepaid or personal delivery not less than 15 days and not more than 60 days prior to any approval being solicited; (2) the approval of owners representing more than 50 percent ... of the separate interests in the common interest development has been given, and that fact has been certified in a writing, executed and acknowledged by an officer of the association; and (3) the amendment has been recorded in each county in which a portion of the common interest development is located." (Italics added.) Additionally, a copy of the recorded amendment must immediately be mailed or delivered to all homeowners. n4 ^CA(6)

(6) In short, the statute provides [**1228] that an amendment is effective after notice of the proposed amendment is given to the homeowners, a majority of the homeowners approve the amendment, and the amendment is recorded. (1 Hanna & Van Atta, Cal. Common Interest Developments: Law and Practice, supra, § 22:119, p. 1439; 9 Miller & Starr, Cal. Real Estate (3d ed. 2001) § 25:133, pp. 302-303.)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Footnotes - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

n4 Section 1355(b) provides in full: ^HN9

"Except to the extent that a declaration provides by its express terms that it is not amendable, in whole or in part, a declaration which fails to include provisions permitting its amendment at all times during its existence may be amended at any time. For purposes of this subdivision, an amendment is only effective after (1) the proposed amendment has been distributed to all of the owners of separate interests in the common interest development by first-class mail postage prepaid or personal delivery not less than 15 days and not more than 60 days prior to any approval being solicited; (2) the approval of owners representing more than 50 percent, or any higher percentage required by the declaration for the approval of an amendment to the declaration, of the separate interests in the common interest development has been given, and that fact has been certified in a writing, executed and acknowledged by an officer of the association; and (3) the amendment has been recorded in each county in which a portion of the common interest development is located. A copy of any amendment adopted pursuant to this subdivision shall be distributed by first-class mail postage prepaid or personal delivery to all of the owners of separate interest immediately upon its recordation."

- - - - - - - - - - - - End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

^HN10

^CA(7)

(7) Plainly read, any amendment duly adopted under this subdivision is effective against all homeowners, irrespective of when the owner acquired title to the separate interest or whether the homeowner voted for the [*84] amendment. (See, e.g., 1 Hanna & Van Atta, Cal. Common Interest Developments: Law and Practice, supra, § 22:119, p. 1439; 9 Miller & Starr, Cal. Real Estate, supra, § 25:133, p. 308.) Terifaj's argument that subsequently enacted amendments are not binding on current homeowners runs counter to section 1355(b)'s express language that an amendment is effective upon the satisfaction of [***73] the requirements enumerated in that provision. Neither section 1355(b) nor any other provision in the Davis-Stirling Act exempts from compliance with amendments to the declaration homeowners who purchased their individual units prior to the amendment.

That is not surprising. To allow a declaration to be amended but limit its applicability to subsequent purchasers would make little sense. ^HN11

^CA(8)

(8) A requirement for upholding covenants and restrictions in common interest developments is that they be uniformly applied and burden or benefit all interests evenly. (See, e.g., Nahrstedt, supra, 8 Cal.4th at p. 368 [restrictions must be "uniformly enforced"]; Rest.3d Property, Servitudes, § 6.10, com. f, p. 200.) This requirement would be severely undermined if only one segment of the condominium development were bound by the restriction. It would also, in effect, delay the benefit of the restriction or the amelioration of the harm addressed by the restriction until every current homeowner opposed to the restriction sold his or her interest. This would undermine the stability of the community, rather than promote stability as covenants and restrictions are intended to do.

Terifaj's position would also, essentially, render meaningless the simple majority vote required for amendments to take effect under section 1355(b). Instead, unanimous consent would be needed, which would often be unattainable. ^CA(9)

(9) The language of section 1355(b), however, makes clear that a simple majority is all that is required before an amendment becomes effective. One reason for this is because amendment provisions are designed to "prevent[] a small number of holdouts from blocking changes regarded by the majority to be necessary to adapt to changing circumstances and thereby permit the community to retain its vitality over time." (Rest.3d Property, Servitudes, § 6.10, com. a, p. 196.)

Subjecting owners to use restrictions in amended declarations promotes stability within common interest developments. As we observed in Nahrstedt, ^HN12

"[u]se restrictions are an inherent part of any common interest development and are crucial to the stable, planned environment of any shared ownership arrangement." (Nahrstedt, supra, 8 Cal.4th at p. 372.) Such restrictions may "preclude alteration of building exteriors, limit the number of persons that [*85] can occupy each unit, and place limitations on--or prohibit altogether--the keeping of pets. [Citations.]" (Id. at p. 373.) We [**1229] explained that a homeowners association, "through an elected board of directors, is empowered ... to enact new rules governing the use and occupancy of property within the [development]." (Ibid.) We further observed that "anyone who buys a unit in a common interest development with knowledge of its owners association's discretionary power accepts 'the risk that the power may be used in a way that benefits the commonality but harms the individual.' " (Id., at p. 374, quoting Natelson, Consent, Coercion, and "Reasonableness" in Private Law: The Special Case of the Property Owners Association (1990) 51 Ohio State L.J. 41, 67.) A prospective homeowner who purchases property in a common interest development should be aware that new rules and regulations may be adopted by the homeowners association either through the board's rulemaking power or through the association's amendment powers. (See, e.g., Randolph, Changing the Rules: Should Courts Limit the Power of Common Interest Communities to Alter Unit Owners' Privileges in the Face of Vested [***74] Expectations? (1998) 38 Santa Clara L.Rev. 1081, 1126 ["There is no basis to argue that purchasers of units within common interest communities have an expectation that there will be no changes at all."].)

Finally, section 1355(b)'s legislative history supports the conclusion that all homeowners are bound by amendments adopted and recorded subsequent to purchase. (Jarrow Formulas, Inc. v. LaMarche (2003) 31 Cal.4th 728, 736 [3 Cal. Rptr. 3d 636, 74 P.3d 737] ^HN13

[court "may observe that available legislative history buttresses a plain language construction"].) Subdivision (b) of section 1355 was not part of the bill enacting the Davis-Stirling Act, but was added three years later in 1988. (Stats. 1988, ch. 1409, § 1, p. 4776 [Assem. Bill No. 4426].) n5 An enrolled bill report from the Department of Real Estate states that "[m]embers of a homeowners' association ... should not forever be saddled with provisions they desire to change." (Cal. Dept. of Real Estate, Enrolled Bill Rep. on Assem. Bill No. 4426 (1987-1988 Reg. Sess.) Aug. 29, 1988, p. 1.) Significantly, the report recommended approval of Assembly Bill No. 4426, despite acknowledging that current homeowners may have relied on the restrictions in place at the time they made their purchase, stating: "The failure to include a provision for amendment may indicate an intentional omission. Additionally, some changes may provide for inconsistent uses which were not previously permissible. Many owners may have acquired [*86] their interest in the subdivision because of such a restriction limiting use. To permit an amendment would affect their reasonable expectations." (Enrolled Bill Rep. on Assem. Bill No. 4426, supra, p. 2.) The Legislature was thus aware that amendments could affect settled or reasonable expectations of some homeowners, but it did not limit the language of section 1355(b) to exempt those homeowners from subdivision (b)'s operation. Tellingly, nothing in the text of section 1355(b) indicates the Legislature intended only subsequent purchasers or homeowners who voted for an amendment to be bound by a use restriction so enacted.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Footnotes - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

n5 Section 1355(b) initially contained a sunset provision with a termination date of January 1, 1990. In 1993, the Legislature amended the subdivision by deleting the sunset provision. (§ 1355(b), as amended by Stats. 1993, ch. 21, § 1, pp. 134-135.) Section 1355(b), therefore, was inoperative between January 1, 1990 and January 1, 1994.

- - - - - - - - - - - - End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

^CA(10)

(10) Section 1355(b)'s express language and the limited legislative history compel the conclusion that all homeowners are bound by amendments made to a declaration pursuant to that section. Accordingly, we conclude that all homeowners are subject to use restrictions contained in amended declarations irrespective of when the amendment was passed.

B.

To enforce the no-pet r