American Homeowners Resource Center (AHRC)

Jackson v. Gilbert Vista ASSD
Tentative Ruling

Court holds:

1. The holding of the meeting three days after the 30 day period is excusable. The only person complaining is the one who put the association in this predicarnent by insisting the meetings be in Fullerton. That resulted in the selection of the library, which could not accommodate the meeting until the date it occurred. If the court were to hold otherwise, it is conceivable the Board could never hold a meeting within the appropriate time period. Lack of interest, apparently precipitated by the plaintiffs own intransigence and insistence on forrnalities for no apparent reason, leads the court to the conclusion that the Board may never be able to achieve a 51% presence in person or by proxy to produce a quorum at a meeting to elect Board members.

2. Hence, the 25% quorum rule applied.

3. The word "ballot" defined in Webster's Dictionary requires a "secret" voting procedure. Hence, the failure to use that was improper, but nothing about it invalidates the election. In the future, the Board should vote by a "secret " procedure. There is no indication anyone was intimidated or felt uncomfortable about the procedure used. Hence, it was a harmless mistake.

4. The failure to have "election inspectors" was a violation of the rules, but it was not fatal to the election, since no one suggests any counting irregularities occurred. Due to the apparent lack of interest by the owners, which defendants say is caused exclusively by the plaintiff s own actions in disrupting meetings and making a nuisance of herself, to require "inspectors" is tantamount to invalidating every election since no one wants to come to the meetings anyway. Plaintiff does not suggest who she would elect, nor whether such persons would even attend.

5. There is nothing in the by-laws to suggest the Board may not be a proxy holder. Hence, the proxies were legal.

6. The election is invalid because no one received 14 votes. The court cannot find anything in the by-laws to supersede the requirement that 51% of the membership, regardless of whether they are present in person or by proxy, must vote to elect a Board member.

7. What troubles the court is the plaintiff's own lack of interest in resolving the problem. She nominated no one, and wouldn't run herself. She claims that she was afraid she'd 'waive" her position that the meeting was invalid. Nothing precluded her from proceeding underprotest. Her reasoning sounds hollow. Nevertheless, one more proxy was necessary to validate the election to this board to which no one wants to belong because of the plaintiff's various methods of what can best be characterized as a nuisance. The fact she's a self-styled paralegal means to the court she should work with the members and Board to accomplish results, not do everything she can to insist upon rigid procedures for their own sake. How she thinks invalidating this election will assist her "cause" is unknown.

The Board has five seats; it can't get more than three people to serve. Until she can find three people to serve her own interests, she might consider co-operating, or move out. A paralegal "certificate" is not a ticket to practicing law; that said, practicing law is far different than the meticulous observance of technical points designed to prolong rather than resolve disputes.

8. The Board is ordered to appropriately re-notice and conduct a new meeting to properly elect a Board of Directors. For the time being, until a new Board is properly elected, the court orders that the Board serving at the time of the disputed election will continue to be the Board for all purposes.

This Tentative Decision will become the Statement of Decision unless within ten days either party specifies controverted issues or makes proposals not covered in the Tentative Decision. The specification, if any, must be delivered to the court within the ten day period. Service by mail within that time frame is not sufficient. The parties are referred to CCP 632 and CRC 232 regarding implementation of this Tentative Decision.

Rckline 5/30/2000

	SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE

	MAY 30, 2000	CASE NO. 00CC05364 ASSIGNED TO: JUDGE RONALD C. KLINE DEPT. C-7

as	Plaintiff: IRENE R. JACKSON	Defendant: GILBERT VISTA HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION- a California non-profit mutual benefit corporation MARK A. GIVENS, LILLIAN AD. COSGRO, LELIA LOIS HOOD and DOES 1 through 100 inclusive 100, inclusive
	MINUTE ORDER
	Case: 00CC05364 JACKSON VS GILBERT VISTA ASSN., ET AL Date: MAY 30, 2000 Court convened at Judge: RONALD C. KLINE Clerk: B. ZUANICH Bailiff: NONE Reporter: NONE and the following were had: No appearances. This matter having been taken under submission on May 24, 2000, the Court renders the following Tentative Decision: The Board is order to appropriately re-notice and conduct a new meeting to properly elect a Board of Directors. For the time being, until a new Board is properly elected, the Court orders that the Board serving at the time of the disputed election will continue to be the Board for all purposes, This Tentative Decision will become the Statement of Decision unless within ten days either party specifies controverted issues or makes proposals not covered in the Tentative Decision. COPY OF COURT'S FINDINGS AND RULINGS ATTACHED HERETO AND lNCORPORATED HEREIN BY REFERENCE, Clerk to give notice ENTERED: 5-30-2000
	SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE, CENTRAL 3USTICE CENTER MINUTE ORDER Dept. C7 Case: 00CC05364 JACKSON VS GILBERT VISTA ASSN., ET AL Date: MAY 30, 2000 Norman Mathews - Attorney for plaintiff 421 North Brookhurst Street Suite 232 Anaheim, CA 92801-5619 Matthew F. Batezel - for defendant EVEN, CRANDALL, WADE, LOWE & GATES 7700 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 700 Irvine, CA 92618-2929 CLERK'S CERTIFICATE OF MAILING (C.C.P. §1013a) - I certify that I am not a party to this cause, over 18, and a copy of this document was mailed first class postage [ully prepaid, in a sealed envelope addressed as shown. Mailing and execution of this certificate occurred on May 30, 2000, in Santa Ana, California. ALAN SLATER, EXECUTIVE OFFICER/CLERK, by BETSY ZUANICH , Deputy.
	Jackson v. Gilbert Vista ASSD Tentative Ruling Court holds: 1. The holding of the meeting three days after the 30 day period is excusable. The only person complaining is the one who put the association in this predicarnent by insisting the meetings be in Fullerton. That resulted in the selection of the library, which could not accommodate the meeting until the date it occurred. If the court were to hold otherwise, it is conceivable the Board could never hold a meeting within the appropriate time period. Lack of interest, apparently precipitated by the plaintiffs own intransigence and insistence on forrnalities for no apparent reason, leads the court to the conclusion that the Board may never be able to achieve a 51% presence in person or by proxy to produce a quorum at a meeting to elect Board members. 2. Hence, the 25% quorum rule applied. 3. The word "ballot" defined in Webster's Dictionary requires a "secret" voting procedure. Hence, the failure to use that was improper, but nothing about it invalidates the election. In the future, the Board should vote by a "secret " procedure. There is no indication anyone was intimidated or felt uncomfortable about the procedure used. Hence, it was a harmless mistake. 4. The failure to have "election inspectors" was a violation of the rules, but it was not fatal to the election, since no one suggests any counting irregularities occurred. Due to the apparent lack of interest by the owners, which defendants say is caused exclusively by the plaintiff s own actions in disrupting meetings and making a nuisance of herself, to require "inspectors" is tantamount to invalidating every election since no one wants to come to the meetings anyway. Plaintiff does not suggest who she would elect, nor whether such persons would even attend. 5. There is nothing in the by-laws to suggest the Board may not be a proxy holder. Hence, the proxies were legal. 6. The election is invalid because no one received 14 votes. The court cannot find anything in the by-laws to supersede the requirement that 51% of the membership, regardless of whether they are present in person or by proxy, must vote to elect a Board member. 7. What troubles the court is the plaintiff's own lack of interest in resolving the problem. She nominated no one, and wouldn't run herself. She claims that she was afraid she'd 'waive" her position that the meeting was invalid. Nothing precluded her from proceeding underprotest. Her reasoning sounds hollow. Nevertheless, one more proxy was necessary to validate the election to this board to which no one wants to belong because of the plaintiff's various methods of what can best be characterized as a nuisance. The fact she's a self-styled paralegal means to the court she should work with the members and Board to accomplish results, not do everything she can to insist upon rigid procedures for their own sake. How she thinks invalidating this election will assist her "cause" is unknown. The Board has five seats; it can't get more than three people to serve. Until she can find three people to serve her own interests, she might consider co-operating, or move out. A paralegal "certificate" is not a ticket to practicing law; that said, practicing law is far different than the meticulous observance of technical points designed to prolong rather than resolve disputes. 8. The Board is ordered to appropriately re-notice and conduct a new meeting to properly elect a Board of Directors. For the time being, until a new Board is properly elected, the court orders that the Board serving at the time of the disputed election will continue to be the Board for all purposes. This Tentative Decision will become the Statement of Decision unless within ten days either party specifies controverted issues or makes proposals not covered in the Tentative Decision. The specification, if any, must be delivered to the court within the ten day period. Service by mail within that time frame is not sufficient. The parties are referred to CCP 632 and CRC 232 regarding implementation of this Tentative Decision. Rckline 5/30/2000
American Homeowners Resource Center P.O. Box 97 * San Juan Capistrano California 92693 Phone: (949) 366-2125 * E-mail:ahrc@ahrc.com © 1998 - 2000, AHRC News Services