## Facts

- A condominium project had 23 fourth-floor units, each adjacent to attic space designated as common area on the project plan.
- The attic spaces were physically accessible only through the associated fourth-floor units.
- For years, multiple fourth-floor owners used portions of the attic common area for storage; after a complaint, the board found 18 of 23 were using 50–288 square feet.
- The board consulted an insurance broker, who advised that attic storage had not impaired coverage or insurability.
- The board adopted a resolution permitting each fourth-floor owner to use up to 120 square feet of the adjacent attic common area for “rough storage,” subject to conditions and safety limits, and required reductions for larger existing uses.
- A non–fourth-floor owner (as trustee) sued the association, board members, and certain residents for trespass, breach of fiduciary duty, and injunctive relief, arguing the policy exceeded board authority, effectively amended the CC&Rs without owner approval, and was tainted because some voting directors owned fourth-floor units.

## Issues

1. Whether the board acted within its authority under the CC&Rs by allowing fourth-floor owners limited exclusive use of otherwise inaccessible attic common area for storage.
2. Whether the board’s policy constituted a material amendment or change to the CC&Rs requiring approval of the membership.
3. Whether the resolution was invalid because directors who benefited as fourth-floor owners participated and voted, allegedly lacking a disinterested majority.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed summary judgment for all defendants.
- The board acted within the authority granted by the CC&Rs to manage, maintain, and regulate use of the common areas.
- Allowing limited “rough storage” use (capped and conditioned) was treated as a reasonable rule governing common-area use, not a reallocation of ownership rights requiring an amendment vote.
- The resolution was not invalid solely because some directors were fourth-floor owners; the undisputed record did not show impermissible self-dealing or interests adverse to the association.

## Legal Principles

- When CC&Rs confer broad managerial and rulemaking authority over common areas, courts will uphold reasonable board decisions regulating common-area use if they fall within that grant of authority.
- A board rule regulating use of common area—especially where access is practically limited to certain units—does not necessarily constitute a material amendment of CC&Rs absent a change in ownership interests or other fundamental project rights.
- Director participation is not automatically improper merely because directors are also owners affected by a generally applicable rule; invalidity requires a showing of actionable self-dealing or a conflict contrary to the association’s interests.
- On summary judgment, a plaintiff must present evidence creating a triable issue of material fact on lack of authority, improper amendment, or disqualifying conflict; undisputed evidence supporting a reasoned board action warrants judgment for defendants.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the association board’s resolution permitting limited, conditioned storage use of otherwise inaccessible attic common area by fourth-floor owners, concluding it was a permissible exercise of board authority under the CC&Rs, did not materially amend the governing documents, and was not voided by the participation of director-owners absent proof of improper self-dealing.


Harvey v. The Landing Homeowners Ass'n, 162 Cal. App. 4th 809, 76 Cal. Rptr. 3d 41 (Ct. App. 2008)