Wittenberg Vs Beachwalk: Aka As Homeowners Vs HOA Industry
Wittenberg Vs Beachwalk: Aka As Homeowners Vs HOA Industry
8212545
IN
THE
Respondents,
v.
Petitioners.
AFTER A DECISION BY THE COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE
CASE
No. G046891
TABLE OF CONTENTS
P age
B.
C.
11
II.
.......................
. . .......
A.
B.
CONCLUSION
11
.......... . .... . .
..
16
17
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page(s)
Cases
Statutes
. 1363.03
subd. (a) ( 1) ........................................................................... 1, 2, 3
subd. (a)(2) ................................................................................... 2
1363.04
10
111
IN THE
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA
PAUL WITTENBERG, et al.,
Respondents,
v.
Petitioners.
REPLY TO ANSWER TO
PETITION FOR REVIEW
INTRODUCTION
I.
WITTENBERG
SHOWING
THAT
STATUTORY
A.
all recognized
that
homeowner
association
Wittenberg is mistaken
about the merits of his case. And this issue is too important, and
the resulting harm is too severe, to allow this decis1on to become the
law in California.
In an amicus letter urging this Court to grant Beachwalk's
petition, twenty law firms representing a large number of
homeowner associations throughout California emphasized the
v.
Beachwalk
HOA"].)
The amicus letter by the Center for California Homeowner
Association Law
As noted by Wittenberg,
B.
The
amici
letters
and
Wittenberg's
answer
C.
Wittenberg
asserts
that
the
widespread,
negative
p. 3 ["if the
p.
["To
stability. to
restore
common
interest
v.
10
II.
The
A.
confusion
regarding
the
scope
of
court's
11
12
13
B.
v.
v.
["where as in the instant case the trial court refused to consider and
weigh evidence upon the erroneous theory that it could not be
considered, an appellate court is not justified in affirming the
14
15
CONCLUSION
ADAMS KESSLER PL C
ADRIAN J. ADAMS
MARY E. GRAM
MARY E. GRAM
Attorneys for Petitioner
BEACHWALK HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION
16
17
PROOF OF SERVICE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
At the time of service, I was over 18 years of age and not a party to this action. I
am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. My business address is
15760 Ventura Boulevard, 18th Floor, Encino, California 91436-3000.
On September 3, 2013, I served true copies of the following document(s)
described as REPLY TO ANSWER TO PETITION FOR REVIEW on the interested
parties in this action as follows:
SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST
BY MAIL:
SERVICE LIST
Wittenberg
v.
Beachwalk HOA
William L. Buus
Schiffer & Buus APC
3070 Bristol St., Ste. 530
Costa Mesa, CA 92626