Cebular

Cebular v. COOPER ARMS HOMEOWNERS ASS'N

Good Law
142 Cal. App. 4th 106·2006 Cal. App. LEXIS 1275·2006 Daily Journal DAR 11113·47 Cal. Rptr. 3d 666·6 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7765
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 21, 2006B182555California18,656 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Turner, J.

*110 Opinion

I. INTRODUCTION

For nearly three quarters of a century, the Cooper Arms, a historic and beautiful 12-story apartment building in Long Beach, was a stock cooperative. The cooperative operated as a corporation. Unit owners in the stock cooperative owned shares in the corporation. Some residents owned more shares than others. When issues about the management and upkeep of the Cooper Arms arose, the stockholders would vote. And as with any corporation, the more shares a person owned, the greater her or his vote mattered. Speaking hypothetically, if a stockholder owned 25 percent of the shares, then that person’s vote counted for 25 percent of the votes.

In 1995, 75 percent of the members of the cooperative decided to convert the property to condominiums. In doing so, the shares in the cooperative were converted to votes per unit. Some condominium unit owners could cast as few as 19 votes. Others could cast as many as 85 votes. As when the building was a cooperative, the more shares a owner held, the greater the impact of his or her vote on condominium issues. However, just as the votes are unequal — so too are the common area and other assessments. An owner with more…

Concurring Opinion

Mosk, J.

Concurring. — I concur.

Originally a stock cooperative held title to the residential property at issue. (Civ. Code, § 1351, subd. (m).) 1 Each occupant of a unit in the premises acquired shares of stock for a price and executed a lease. The shareholders acquired their shares for different sums of money, presumably reflecting the market prices at the time of purchase. Thus, the shareholders’ interests in the cooperative varied based on the *128 number of shares of stock they purchased. Stock ownership determined voting rights.

The cooperative was then converted into a condominium. Under the terms of the declaration of the newly formed condominium, the amount of stock each unit holder owned determined the percentage of the “undivided interests in common area possessed by each unit holder” in the condominium. The amount of each undivided interest in the common area of the condominium determined the number of votes accorded to a unit holder, and in turn, the amount of assessments to be paid by that unit holder. The assessments are not restricted to common area expenses. They are for “common expenses” that include expenses “for all other items incurred by the Association, for any…

Opinion

Certified for Partial Publication. [*]

For nearly three quarters of a century, the Cooper Arms, a historic and beautiful 12-story apartment building in Long Beach, was a stock cooperative. The cooperative operated as a corporation. Unit owners in the stock cooperative owned shares in the corporation. Some residents owned more shares than others. When issues about the management and upkeep of the Cooper Arms arose, the stockholders would vote. And as with any corporation, the more shares a person owned, the greater her or his vote mattered. Speaking hypothetically, if a stockholder owned 25 percent of the shares, then that person's vote counted for 25 percent of the votes.

In 1995, 75 percent of members of the cooperative decided to convert the property to condominiums. In doing so, the shares in the cooperative were converted to votes per unit. Some condominium unit owners could cast as few as 19 votes. Others could cast as many as 85 votes. As when the building was a cooperative, the more shares a owner held, the greater the impact of his or her vote on condominium issues. However, just as the votes are unequal — so too are the common area and other assessments.…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.