AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• Watermill Properties, Inc. (Watermill) purchased Lot 45 in the Wilderness Gate subdivision in 2005. The subdivision is governed by the Wilderness Gate Owners Association (the Association), which enforces a Declaration that subjects properties to annual and special assessments for capital improvements. In 2012, the Association amended the Declaration's definition of "Common Areas." On July 19, 2014, the Association approved a special assessment of $5,000 per lot for paving the first 1.3 miles of Wilderness Gate Road. Watermill was notified but failed to pay the assessment, leading the Association to file a notice of lien and sue Watermill to collect the owed money and foreclose on the lien (paras 4-5).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellee (the Association): Argued that it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law based on undisputed facts that it had the authority to impose and collect the special assessment for capital improvements as per the Declaration. The Association moved for summary judgment on these grounds (para 6).
• Defendant-Appellant (Watermill): Contended that a genuine issue of material fact exists, precluding summary judgment, specifically challenging the reasonableness of the 2012 amendment to the definition of "Common Area." Watermill argued that this amendment was unreasonable and likened the case to Nettles v. Ticonderoga Owner’s Ass’n, Inc. Watermill did not dispute the Association's legal authority to assess and collect the special assessment but challenged the amendment's reasonableness (para 7).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of the Association when Watermill contended that a genuine issue of material fact existed regarding the reasonableness of the 2012 amendment to the Declaration's definition of "Common Area" (paras 1, 7).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the Association (para 13).

Reasons

• M. Monica Zamora, Judge, with Julie J. Vargas, Judge, and Jacqueline R. Medina, Judge, concurring, reasoned that the alleged disputed facts on which Watermill relied were not material to the Association’s claims. The court reviewed the summary judgment de novo and found that the Association had made a prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment based on undisputed facts. Watermill's challenge to the reasonableness of the 2012 amendment to the definition of "Common Area" was found not to be material to its obligation to pay the special assessment. The court distinguished this case from Nettles, noting that the reasonableness of the amendment was not determinative of Watermill's obligation to pay. Since Watermill failed to demonstrate how the amendment's reasonableness was material to the enforcement of the special assessment, the court held that the district court properly granted summary judgment to the Association (paras 2-11).