Facts

Plaintiffs Martin and Claire Ryan purchased real property governed by the 1001 California Street Condominium Homeowner's Association. Plaintiffs represented themselves during the sale. Seller Diane Wiley was represented by Joanne Stein of Pacific Union International, Inc. The HOA disclosed during the sale that the common area roof was going to require repairs which would warrant a special assessment within the next year. The amount of the assessment, which the HOA levied after the purchase, was higher than the amount the HOA represented it would be during the sale.

PLAINTIFFS' CONTENTIONS: Plaintiffs contended that the HOA defendants intentionally refrained from making necessary repairs and changes to their property so that they could recover the costs from residents like plaintiffs. They contended the HOA defendants also violated various covenants and provisions in the HOA with plaintiffs because it acted in bad faith and failed to set funds aside to maintain common areas as it was required to by law, and failed to provide heat to the unit. Separately, Plaintiffs contended that the Real Estate Defendants negligently misrepresented the amount of the upcoming special assessment for the roof work. Plaintiffs contended they did not have a duty to respond to two separate demurrers filed in response to their Fourth Amended Complaint because they elected to file a Fifth Amended Complaint instead.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS: The HOA defendants contended that their demurrer should be granted as to Plaintiffs' claims for Breach of the Governing Documents and for violations of the Davis Sterling Act. The Real Estate Defendants contended the single claim against them for Negligent Misrepresentation was subject to demurrer because the Fourth Amended Complaint alleged the real estate agent accurately conveyed the information provided by the HOA regarding the upcoming assessment to Plaintiffs. The HOA defendants and the Real Estate Defendants each filed notices of non-opposition to their respective demurrers.

Result

Plaintiffs needed leave of court to file a Fifth Amended Complaint. Accordingly, the two separate demurrers were each sustained without leave to amend.