Landesberg v. Fairway Vill. Homeowners Ass'n

546 P.3d 502

Janet LANDESBERG and Phil Landesberg, Appellants,

v.FAIRWAY VILLAGE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, and Judy Hooper, Respondents,Lynn Williams and Jan Wyninger, Defendants Below

No. 57740-2-II

Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 2.

Filed April 9, 2024

Appeal from Clark Superior Court, Docket No: 21-2-00886-1, Honorable Gregory M Gonzales, Judge.

Moloy K. Good, The Good Law Clinic, 7017 Ne. Highway 99 Ste. 106 Vancouver, WA, 98665-0554, for Appellants.

Simone Esq. McCormick, Fisher Broyles, 4207 Se. Woodstock Blvd. #187, Portland, OR, 97206, for Respondents.

PUBLISHED OPINION

Veljacic, A.C.J.

¶1 Janet and Phil Landesberg (the Landesbergs) own a home in Fairway Village, a housing development in Vancouver. The Landesbergs’ property is governed by the Fairway Village Homeowners Association (the HOA). One of its governing documents, the declaration of covenants, conditions, and restrictions (the Declaration) allows display of "any political sign protected by law." Clerk’s Papers (CP) at 331. The Declaration also provides that "[p]olitical signs are not to be displayed more than 60 days prior to an election." CP at 112.

¶2 RCW 64.38.034(1) provides that HOA governing documents "may not prohibit the outdoor display of political yard signs by an owner or resident on the owner’s or resident’s property before any primary or general election." HOAs are permitted to "include reasonable rules and regulations regarding the placement and manner of display of political yard signs." Id.

¶3 The Landesbergs displayed a political sign in their yard more than 60 days before an upcoming primary election. The HOA requested that they remove the yard sign consistent with the HOA rules limiting display to the period 60 days prior to an election. The Landesbergs complied and then filed suit against the HOA and others, claiming that the HOA violated RCW 64.38.034(1) by impermissibly prohibiting the display of a political yard sign before an election. The Landesbergs moved for summary judgment, asserting that displaying political yard signs before an election is unambiguously protected by RCW 64.38.034(1) and that the HOA’s 60-day limitation violated the statute.

¶4 The HOA cross-moved for summary judgment on the ground that RCW 64.38.034(1) provides the authority to impose reasonable regulations on the placement and manner of political yard signs. Specifically, the HOA asserted that the term "manner" in the statute necessarily includes "time" such that the statute allows the HOA to regulate the time in which a political sign is displayed. Id. The trial court granted the HOA’s motion for summary judgment and denied the Landesbergs’ motion for summary judgment.

¶5 We reverse the grant of summary judgment. Rather than interpreting the term "manner" in the statute to also include "time" as the HOA argued, we conclude that RCW 64.38.034(1) expressly addresses whether an HOA can restrict the time period during which a political yard sign may be displayed. We hold that RCW 64.38.034(1) unambiguously disallows an HOA from prohibiting the display of political yard signs before an election. We therefore reverse and remand for the trial court to enter an order denying the HOA’s motion for summary judgment and granting the Landesbergs’ motion for summary judgement as to their statutory and breach of contract claims and for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

FACTS

I. Background Facts

¶6 Since 2014, Janet and Phil Landesberg have owned a house in the Fairway Village Community in Vancouver. The HOA was established in 1982 and operates pursuant to the Homeowner Association Act (HAA), chapter 64.38 RCW. The HOA governing documents include a declaration of covenants, conditions, and restrictions (the Declaration). The Declaration operates as "a set of covenants, conditions and restrictions running with the land or [as] equitable servitudes." CP at 244.

¶7 In 2003, the HOA amended the Declaration to broadly state that "no sign, except a security sign issued by the installer, shall be erected or displayed upon any unit, yard or common area without prior written permission from the Architectural Review Committee" with a few exceptions. CP at 237. In 2005, after the legislature enacted RCW 64.38.034(1), the HOA board of directors (the HOA Board) adopted a new policy that allowed residents and owners to display political signs in their yards without restriction. This policy was labeled Policy 2005-3.

¶8 In 2015, the HOA again amended its Declaration. Section 2.8.1 of the 2015 version of the Declaration provides in part,

No signs, except a security system sign issued by the installer, or a "No Soliciting" sign if the Owner desires, or any political sign protected by law, shall be erected or displayed upon any Lot. Political Signs must be sized and placed in conformance with Rules and Regulations established by the Board and must be removed within 3 days of election.

CP at 82 (emphasis added).

¶9 In 2016, the HOA adopted a "Rules & Regulations Manual for Property Improvements and Maintenance" (PIM manual). Rule 3.14(c)(1) of this manual provides that,

Political signs may not be posted on Common Areas and may not be placed on a Lot in such a way that they obstruct drivers’ lines of sight. Political signs are not to be displayed more than 60 days prior to an election and must be removed within three days of the election. No sign that requires more than a single stake for support is permitted. Banner-type signs requiring more than one support are not allowed.

CP at 112 (emphasis added).

¶10 In September 2019, Janet Landesberg wrote to the HOA Board expressing concern over the legality of rule 3.14(c)(1) in light of RCW 64.38.034(1). The HOA Board referred the matter to a committee in charge of rewriting and correcting the PIM manual. Janet Landesberg was appointed to the committee, and collectively, the committee submitted proposed changes to the Declaration and the PIM manual. The HOA Board did not adopt the committee’s proposed changes.

¶11 On March 30, 2021, more than 60 days before the August 3, 2021 primary, the Landesbergs placed a political sign in their front yard. The HOA e-mailed the Landesbergs, requesting that they remove the sign until June 3, 2021, 60 days before the primary election. The Landesbergs complied and subsequently sued the HOA. The Landesbergs alleged, among other claims, that the HOA impermissibly prohibited their display of a political yard sign before an election and thus violated the Declaration, which permits the display of any political sign protected by law.

¶12 Both parties moved for summary judgment. The trial court ruled that RCW 64.38.034(1) is ambiguous and that the legislature intended that the terms "placement" and "manner" permit the HOA to impose reasonable regulations dictating when signs may be displayed. 1 Rep. of Proc. (RP) at 21. Accordingly, the trial court denied the Landesbergs’ motion for partial summary judgment and granted summary judgment in the HOA’s favor. The Landesbergs appeal.

II. History of RCW 64.38.034(1)

¶13 The HOA operates pursuant to the HAA, located in chapter 64.38 RCW. In 2005, the legislature enacted Substitute Senate Bill 6064, amending the HAA to include RCW 64.38.034(1).

¶14 RCW 64.38.034(1) states that an HOA "may not prohibit the outdoor display of political yard signs by an owner of resident on the owner’s or resident’s property before any primary or general election. The governing documents may include reasonable rules and regulations regarding the placement and manner of display of political yard signs." As it progressed through the legislative process, the bill was amended from its original form and had several public committee hearings.

¶15 First, the legislature initially included, and subsequently removed, a provision that would have prevented HOAs from prohibiting the display of a political sign "for a period of ninety days before any primary or election." CP at 69. The bill’s sponsor, described the removal of this language in testimony before the Senate Financial Institutions, Housing and Consumer Committee. He asserted that it was taken out because "there’s really no reason for a time limit … if political free speech is political free speech. It shouldn’t be constrained to a time limit." CP at 575.

¶16 Second, during a hearing in the House Judiciary Committee, the bill’s sponsor described the purpose of the proposed legislation as addressing the problem of "people signing away their constitutional right to free speech." CP at 589. Subsequently, the legislative director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Washington reiterated this description—asserting that the bill was intended to protect "fundamental free speech right[s]" from infringement by HOA governing documents. CP at 592. The bill report also included references to constitutional free speech rights, including a paragraph dedicated to outlining First and Fourteenth Amendment speech protections.

¶17 RCW 64.38.034(1) does not exist in a vacuum; rather, it operates as part of Washington’s HOA regulatory framework. Specifically, the HAA governs homeowners’ associations created prior to 2018. In 2018, the legislature enacted the Washington Uniform Common Interest Ownership Act (WUCIOA), located in chapter 64.90 RCW. The WUCIOA automatically applies to HOAs created on or after July 1, 2018. RCW 64.90.075(1). It does, however, provide a mechanism for communities to convert from HAA governance to WUCIOA governance. RCW 64.90.095. In preserving the preexisting HAA statute and providing a means of conversion, the legislature created two distinct HOA regulatory structures.

¶18 Similar to the HAA, WUCIOA has a provision allowing HOAs to adopt rules regarding the display of political signs. RCW 64.90.510(2) states, "[HOAs] may not prohibit display of signs regarding candidates for public or association office, or ballot issues, on or within a unit or limited common element, but the association may adopt...