## Facts

- California Riviera Homeowners Association governed a subdivision subject to recorded CC&Rs, including a ten-foot side-yard setback restriction.
- The CC&Rs (Article IV, section 10) authorized the Association to record a “notice of violation” upon breach and required recordation before the Association could file enforcement litigation.
- After Stuart Hackel remodeled his home, the Association recorded a “Notice of Violation of Restrictions” alleging noncompliance with the setback requirement.
- Hackel sued the Association and two officers, alleging claims including slander of title, breach of fiduciary duty, and declaratory and injunctive relief, contending (among other theories) that the setback restriction and the notice procedure were invalid and that the notice was not recordable.
- The trial court initially ordered the recorded notice expunged, but a prior appellate writ decision held that a CC&R-authorized notice of violation was recordable on these facts.
- The Association later moved for summary judgment based on Civil Code § 47(b), asserting the recordation was a privileged publication connected to contemplated enforcement litigation.
- The trial court denied summary judgment, reasoning the notice was “not authorized by law” and therefore not privileged.

## Issues

1. Whether the Association’s recordation of a CC&R-required notice of violation as a prerequisite to enforcement litigation is a communication “in” or “in connection with” a judicial proceeding under Civil Code § 47(b).
2. Whether the litigation privilege bars tort claims, including slander of title, premised on the content and recordation of the notice of violation.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal granted the Association’s petition for writ of mandate.
- The court held the recordation of the notice of violation was a communication made “in connection with” a judicial proceeding within Civil Code § 47(b).
- The court directed the trial court to vacate the order denying summary judgment and to enter a new order granting summary judgment for the Association on the privilege defense.

## Legal Principles

- Civil Code § 47(b) confers an absolute privilege for publications made in or in connection with judicial proceedings; the privilege applies regardless of malice and bars derivative tort liability based on the communication.
- The privilege extends to communications logically related to litigation, including steps that function as prerequisites to filing suit.
- Pre-litigation communications are privileged when made in serious and good-faith contemplation of litigation and when they bear a logical connection to the proposed proceeding.
- Where governing CC&Rs require recordation of a notice of violation before enforcement litigation may be initiated, the recordation is functionally connected to contemplated litigation and falls within § 47(b).
- The privilege turns on the communication’s connection to contemplated litigation, not on whether the underlying claim ultimately proves correct or enforceable.
- Tort claims predicated on the privileged recordation itself (including slander of title and similar theories based on alleged disparagement) are barred.

## Conclusion

Because the CC&Rs required the Association to record a notice of violation before suing to enforce restrictions, the recordation was a pre-litigation step sufficiently connected to contemplated judicial proceedings and was absolutely privileged under Civil Code § 47(b), requiring summary judgment against Hackel’s tort claims based on that recordation.


Cal. Riviera Homeowners Ass'n v. Superior Ct., 56 Cal. Rptr. 2d 564 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996)