Woodson v. Board of Directors of the Harbor Hill Condominium Homeowners…

Background

Michael Evans Woodson, who represented himself, sued the Board of Directors of the Harbor Hill Condominium Homeowners Association, the only remaining defendant. The association moved to dismiss his complaint, and Woodson did not file an opposition.

The complaint consisted of a cover page and attached letters and documents. As the court understood it, Woodson owned a condominium in Tiburon, California, and claimed that section 4022(b) of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act required the association to temporarily stop collecting a $47,727 special assessment. The assessment was to be used for repairs and improvements to the condominium complex.

Court’s analysis

Section 4022(b) allows a borrower experiencing financial hardship related to the COVID-19 emergency to request temporary forbearance on a federally backed mortgage loan. The court explained that the statute defines a federally backed mortgage loan as a loan secured by certain residential real property and insured, guaranteed, made, purchased, or securitized by specified federal agencies or entities.

The court held that the assessment Woodson owed was not a federally backed mortgage loan because it was not a loan at all, and it was not insured or guaranteed by one of the listed federal entities. Therefore, the CARES Act provision did not require the association to provide the requested forbearance.

The association also argued that Woodson lacked standing—the legal ability to pursue the claim—because the claim belonged to his Chapter 7 bankruptcy estate. The court rejected that argument. Woodson filed for bankruptcy in January 2020, but the CARES Act was not enacted until March 27, 2020. His CARES Act claim therefore arose after he filed for bankruptcy and was not property of the bankruptcy estate.

Ruling

Judge Alex G. Tse granted the association’s motion to dismiss Woodson’s complaint with leave to amend. The court said amendment would likely be futile because the claim did not fall within the CARES Act, but it allowed amendment because Woodson’s complaint was difficult to follow and the court might have misunderstood it.

The court required any amended complaint to identify the legal claims, the facts supporting them, and the relief requested. Woodson had to file it by October 2, 2020. If he did not timely file an amended complaint, his claim against the association would be dismissed with prejudice. The order did not dismiss the claim with prejudice immediately.