CACI negligent infliction of emotional distress

Defendant homeowners' association sought review of a decision by the Superior Court of Alameda County (California), which entered judgment in favor of plaintiff developer, finding that plaintiff was not liable for unpaid assessments after plaintiff brought an action against defendant and the department of real estate for declaratory relief and for an injunction regarding unpaid assessments and defendant filed a cross-complaint seeking payment.

Plaintiff developer brought an action against defendant homeowners' association and the department of real estate for declaratory relief, for an injunction, and for a judicial declaration that plaintiff did not owe defendant for unpaid assessments on lots in a subdivision. Defendant filed a cross-complaint that sought payment of the assessments. The CACI negligent infliction of emotional distress trial court entered judgment in favor of plaintiff on both the complaint and the cross-complaint. Defendant challenged the judgment and the court reversed. The court held that Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 11012 applied because plaintiff was a participant to the oral agreement made between plaintiff and defendant; therefore, any change made that affected the original scheme was a material change and was impermissible. The court further held that the trial court's findings that the agreement was not detrimental to defendant was not supported by substantial evidence. Finally, the court held that the doctrines of in pari delicto and laches did not apply because defendant did not have unclean hands and the defense of laches was not available.

The court reversed the trial court's judgment in favor of plaintiff developer because plaintiff was a participant in an oral agreement with defendant homeowners' association that materially changed the parties' original agreement. The court found that the oral agreement was detrimental to defendant and that the doctrines of in pari delicto and laches did not apply.

Appellant state agency challenged a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County (California), which declared that respondents, landowners and others, were exempt from Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 11000 to 11021 and enjoined the state agency from taking any further proceedings.

The landowners were the successor owners of an undeveloped property, which had been subdivided by the original owner in 1911 on a rectangular grid without regard to the mountainous terrain. The landowners obtained judicial relief against the state agency's administrative proceedings regarding the sale of lots. The court reversed the judgment. The court found that Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 11000 to 11021, enacted after the subdivision of the property in question, provided for notice to the state agency before the sale of subdivided lands and provided for an examination by the state agency to prevent fraud in the sale of subdivided lots. Because nothing in §§ 11000 to 11021 limited the application of the law to property subdivided after enactment or to only the original subdividers or owners and because the state agency did not interpret the law in that manner, the court concluded that the landowners were not exempt from the provisions of §§ 11000 to 11021. In addition, the court found that the landowners could not seek judicial relief without exhausting their remedies before the state agency.

The court reversed the declaratory and injunctive relief granted in favor of the landowners regarding administrative proceedings initiated by the state agency concerning the sale of subdivided lots.