Legal Opinion

Villa Milano Homeowners Ass'n v. Davorge

California Court of Appeal

Decided November 6, 2000No. G023526PublishedCited by 4 opinions

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

  1. Armendariz v. Found. Health Psychcare Servs., Inc.California Supreme Court · 2000
  2. Badie v. Bank of AmericaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1998
  3. Graham v. Scissor-Tail, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1981
  4. Green v. Ralee Engineering Co.California Supreme Court · 1998
  5. Madden v. Kaiser Foundation HospitalsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1976

18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Pinnacle Museum Tower Ass'n v. Pinnacle Market Development (US), LLCCalifornia Supreme Court · 2012
  2. Villa Milano Homeowners Ass'n v. Il DavorgeCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2000
  3. Basura v. U.S. Home Corp.California Court of Appeal · 2002
  4. Pinnacle Museum Tower Ass'n v. Pinnacle Market Development (US), LLCCalifornia Supreme Court · 2012

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API