Villa Milano Homeowners Ass'n v. Davorge
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
SILLS, P. J.
In this case of first impression, we decide whether a developer can use a declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions (CC&R’s) containing a binding arbitration clause as a device to preclude homeowners, and the homeowners association of which they are members, from pursuing an action for construction or design defect damages in a court of law. When homeowners purchase property subject to CC&R’s, they agree to be bound by those CC&R’s, including any arbitration clause contained therein. But that agreement, like any other, will not be enforced if it is *823unconscionable…
2Cases cited23 opinions
- Armendariz v. Found. Health Psychcare Servs., Inc.California Supreme Court · 2000
- Badie v. Bank of AmericaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1998
- Graham v. Scissor-Tail, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1981
- Green v. Ralee Engineering Co.California Supreme Court · 1998
- Madden v. Kaiser Foundation HospitalsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1976
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Pinnacle Museum Tower Ass'n v. Pinnacle Market Development (US), LLCCalifornia Supreme Court · 2012
- Villa Milano Homeowners Ass'n v. Il DavorgeCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2000
- Basura v. U.S. Home Corp.California Court of Appeal · 2002
- Pinnacle Museum Tower Ass'n v. Pinnacle Market Development (US), LLCCalifornia Supreme Court · 2012