Torrance condo association won't let litigants run for board

What if Torrance residents passed a law preventing people from holding office if they had brought any legal action against the city?
That's essentially what happened at Village Palos Verdes, a 180-unit condominium complex on Palos Verdes Boulevard at the far south end of the city.
A group of residents filed a lawsuit last year challenging a $75,000 assessment on each homeowner that they consider excessive.
The assessment was levied to pay for a
$13.5 million exterior renovation project that a majority of the association's board of directors believes is necessary.
However, some residents believe the necessity for repairs of this scope was not fully disclosed before a majority of association members voted in favor of the assessment.
Those residents - some of whom cannot afford to pay the hefty fee while others merely question its necessity - face foreclosure and eviction if they do not pay up.
In response, the board proposed a new bylaw preventing any resident from holding office for six years if he or she brought any sort of legal action against the association.
The apparent genesis of the new bylaw was an annual election, originally scheduled for this Thursday, in which two of the five board seats were up for re-election.
Four of the five members - excluding panelist David Silverberg - are in favor of the assessment.
But board members apparently feared the balance of power could
shift, putting what board President Carma Hardin has called "a minor militant faction" in control of the board and placing the assessment in jeopardy.
"The opposition could put some of their own on the board, making three including Silverberg, and then this will all be a greater mess," Hardin wrote in a March e-mail to the contractor that is now part of the legal record.
The bylaw passed in August with 69 members voting in favor and 37 opposed. That's a majority of those who voted, but a minority of the association's membership, Silverberg noted.
Residents whose dues are not up to date, including the more than 20 who are part of the lawsuit and either can not or will not pay the assessment, are ineligible to vote.
"It's a travesty to the concept of the rights of an individual," Silverberg said. "They purposely decided to change the bylaws to penalize homeowners from exercising their legal rights. It was purely a punitive measure."
Interestingly, Silverberg had brought his own legal action against the board.
He did so because the association's legal committee, which consists of the other four board members but not him, prevented him from seeing documents he believes may call into question the extent of the repairs needed to justify the assessment.
Silverberg said that legal action had been settled in the past week - although he still hasn't seen all the documents he has requested - but added that it's unclear whether he is now banned from running for re-election.
But two potential candidates were prevented from running.
Sue Dell, who lost a small-claims action against the association questioning the legality of the collection of a $600-a-month fee aimed at paying for the renovations that have not yet begun, could not run. (The association cannot get a construction loan in part because of the ongoing lawsuit.)
Neither could Tom Griffing, a plaintiff in the lawsuit against the association.
So Alan R. Johnston, the Del Mar-based attorney representing the dissident homeowners, sought and won a temporary restraining order Tuesday preventing the election from being held given that bylaw.
"Unfortunately, this is a classic horror story of a power hungry majority attempting to squelch a vocal minority politically to obtain the result it wishes," he wrote in a legal brief. "`Just slam it down the minority's throats' appears to be the mantra of the majority."
A Los Angeles Superior Court judge sided with Johnston and issued the restraining order, saying the election couldn't be held unless Griffing's name was placed on the ballot.
Laura Snoke, the association's attorney, called the ruling "a very technical interpretation" of the state law governing elections of such entities that was "not appropriate."
Such bylaws are common in private associations because they eliminate a potential "conflict of interest" of having someone sit on a body they are suing or had sued.
"These are private covenants people agree to," she said. "This is not a municipality imposing law on people."
Johnston disagrees.
Courts have recognized that associations are quasigovernmental bodies because of their ability to implement rules and regulations, he said.
He believes the bylaw is "arbitrary and unenforceable" because it has no rational relationship to the purpose of the association to protect the affected property.
"They're just trying to pound these people into oblivion," he said. "They're taking away their ability to have any kind of say in the running of the organization. It's the most egregious thing I've ever seen."
Each side cites legal precedent supporting their argument.
Meanwhile, once the restraining order expires in 20 days, Johnston must seek a preliminary injunction at another court hearing later this month.
Meanwhile, Silverberg is still seeking answers to questions he believes will either justify the board's actions or call them into question.
"I have not seen any evidence of a need of a major renovation," he said. "The board behaved like a clique. They seemed to be more interested in their personal friendships and their team approach than in analyzing anything."
Story by: Nick Green, Staff writer for Daily Breeze.