Justice O'Rourke decides to publish this opinion, which involves a condo complex, alongside its associated homeowner's association, that's literally across the street from the University at which I work. As a result, I was keenly interested in learning about the various goings-on there.
In brief, it sounds like a nightmare.
Basically, it's a fight between one of the condo owners, who is/was on the board of the HOA, and the rest of the HOA. A fight that involves a plethora of lawsuits, a contested recall election, etc.
The condo owner, Rachel Arroyo, wins -- in part -- this round in the Court of Appeal, which holds that she was wrongfully excluded from various election-related materials distributed by the HOA.
So nice win for her.
But I nonetheless think she's losing in the end. Because while the Court of Appeal holds (in part) for her, it concludes its opinion by stating: "The judgment is reversed. On remand, the trial court is directed to conduct further proceedings so as to give Association the opportunity to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that its noncompliance with section 5105 did not affect the results of the election, and state its findings in writing as part of the record."
I'm fairly certain that the HOA will, in fact, be able to prove that fact on remand. Because the result of the prior election was 369 votes to recall Ms. Arroyo from the board of directors versus only 6 votes to retain her.
So I'm pretty sure she's going to lose on remand.
And, quite frankly, that she's probably not especially well-liked by her neighbors.
