### ORD ERED PU BLISHED

U NIT E D ST A T E S BA NK RU PT CYA PPE L L A T E PA N E L

OF T HE NINT H CIRCU IT In re: MA R IAA . BA S A VE DE GU ILLEN,

Deb to r. HIGHLA N D GR EEN SHO MEO W N ER S A SSO C IA TIO NO F BU EN APA R K , A p pellant,

v. MA R IAA . BA S A VE DE GU ILLEN,

A p pellee. BA P N o . C C -18-1248-LSTa BA P N o . C C -18-1242-LSTa (c o nso lidated appeals) Bk. N o . 8:18-b k-10693-C B

OPINION

A rgued and Sub m itted o n May 23, 2019 at Pasadena, C alifo rnia Filed – A ugust 26, 2019 A ppeal fro m the U nited States Bankruptcy C o urt fo r the C entral Distric t o f C alifo rnia Ho no rab le C atherine E. Bauer, Bankruptcy Judge, Presiding 

# FIL ED
AUG 26 2019 SUSAN M . SPRAUL, CLERK U. S. BKCY

. APP. PANEL O F T HE NI NT H CI RCUI TA ppearanc es: Erin A . Malo ney o f Fio re, R ac ob s &Po wers argued fo r A p pellant; C harity Manee argued fo r A ppellee.
Befo r e: LA FFERTY, SPRA K ER , and TAY LO R

, Bankruptcy Judges. LA FFERTY, Bankruptcy Judge:

INT ROD U CT I ON Highland Greens Ho m eo wners A sso c iatio n (“Highland Greens”) appeals the b ankruptcy c o u rt’s o rder sustaining in part Deb to r Maria Basave de Guillen’s obj ec tio n to Highland Greens’ pro o f o f c laim
. The b ankruptcy c o urt fo und that, under C alifo rnia law, Highland Greens’
rec o r ded no tic e o f lien fo r delinquent ho m eo wners assessm ents o n Deb to r’s c o ndo m iniumdid no t secure am o u nts ac c ruing after the
rec o r datio n o f the lien. A c c o rdingly, the b ankruptcy c o urt lim ited Highland Greens’ secured c laimto the am o unt o f its rec o r ded pre-petitio n state c o urt judgm ent, c lassifying the rem ainder o f the c laim as unsecured. W e A FFIRM. F A C T U A L BA CK GROU N D Pre-petitio n, Deb to r fell b ehind o n the ho m eo w ners asso c iatio n (“HO A ”) dues o n her c o ndo m iniumin Buena Park, C alifo rnia (the “Pro perty”). A s a c o nsequenc e, Highland Greens rec o rded a N o tic e o f 2Delinquent A ssessm ent Lien (the “N o tic e”) against the Pro perty o n

Dec emb er 1, 2008. 1 Highland Greens rec o rded an am endm ent to the N o tic e in A pril 2011 (the “2011 Am endm ent”). Bo th the N o tic e and the 2011 A m endm ent purpo rted to inc lude, in the am o unt subjec t to the lien, unpaid
assessm ents and charges ac c ruing after the date o f the no tic e. In A ugust 2011, Highland Greens sued Deb to r in state c o urt to enfo rc e its lien and, in A pril 2012, ob tained a default judgm ent fo r fo rec lo sure and a m o ney judgm ent o f $21,398.02 (c o nsisting o f $10,140 princ ipal, atto rney’s fees o f $10,273.12, and c o llec tio n c o s ts o f $2,885, m inus a $1,900.10 payment). The m o ney judgm ent was sub sequently rec o rded, and Highland Greens b egan the fo rec lo sure pro c ess, b ut no sale was ever
c o nduc ted. Deb to r filed a chapter 13 2 c ase o n Feb ruary 28, 2018. 3 O n Schedule D, she listed two deb ts to Highland Greens sec ured b y the Pro perty, o ne fo r $8,000, desc rib ed as “interest o n c laim,” and ano ther fo r $40,000, describ ed as “assessments and atto rney’s fees.” Her pro po sed plan pro vided fo r

1 Under Cali for ni alaw, the r ecor dati on of such a noti ce, i f i t compli es wi th cer tai n statutor y r equi rements, cr eates a li en again st the owner ’s inter est inthe subj ect pr oper ty. Cal. Ci v . Code § 5675.

2 Unless specifi ed other wi s e, all chapterand secti on r efer ences ar e to the Bankr uptcy Code, 11 U.S
. C. §§ 101-1532.

3 Debtor had fi led a pr ev i ous chapter 13 peti ti on in July 2017. That case was di smi ssed pr e-confi r mati on on Febr uar y 16, 2018. 3paym ent o f b o th c laim s in full, with interest at ten perc ent o n the $40,000

c laim
. Highland Greens then filed a pro o f o f c laimfo r $64,137.20, purpo rtedly secu r ed b y the Pro perty, with interest at twelve perc ent. The item izatio n attached to the pro o f o f c laimindic ated that it c o nsisted o f: (1) the A pril 2012 m o ney judgm ent o f $21,398.02; (2) $8,572.63 in interest o n the judgm ent; (3) po s t-judgm ent assessm ents thro ugh Feb ruary 1, 2018 o f $14,060; (4) late charges o f $690; (5) po s t-judgm ent interest o f $7,207.44; (6) po s t-judgm ent atto rney’s fees and c o sts o f $13,729.11; less (7) a payment
c redit o f $1,520. The attachm ent to the pro o f o f c laim explained that the po st-judgm ent assessm ents were secu red b y the Pro perty pursuant tothe Dec laratio n o f C o venants, C o nditio ns and Restric t io ns (“C C & R s”) rec o rded in 1964 against the Pro perty. Highland Greens also asserted that it was entitled to twelve perc ent interest o n any delinquent am o unts pursuant to C alifo rnia C ivil C o d e § 5650(b )(3). Highland Greens attached eight pages o f the C C & R s to its pro o f o f
c laim . The relevant pro visio n (paragraph 12(b )) pro vides, am o ng o ther things, that if a delinquenc y in assessm ents is no t paid within ten days after delivery o f a no tic e o f default, the Bo ard o f Go verno rs m ay file a c laimo f lien; the pro visio n then lists the info rm atio n that must b e inc luded in such
c laimo f lien. The paragraph c o ntinues, “[u]po n rec o r datio n o f a duly
exec u ted o riginal o r duly executed c o py o f such c laim o f lien b y the
4R ec o rder o f the C o unty o f O range the lien c laim ed therein shall

im m ediately attach and b ec o m e effec tive, subjec t o nly to the lim itatio ns hereinafter set fo rth. Each default shall c o nstitute a separate b asis fo r a c laimo f lien o r a lien.” Deb to r filed an objec t io n to Highland Greens’ c laim
. She argued: (1) the c laimsho uld b e disallo wed in its entirety fo r lac k o f suppo rting do cum entatio n; (2) m o st o f the c laimsho uld b e rec lassified as unsecured b ec ause Highland Greens did no t c o m ply with the pro c edures set fo rth in the Davis-Stirling C o m m o n Interest Develo pm ent A c t (“Davis-Stirling A c t”
o r the “A c t”), spec ific ally, C alifo rnia C ivil C o de §§ 5660 and 5676, and there was no b asis tofind an equitab le lien; (3) o nly the po rtio n o f the deb t representing the am o unt o wing under the judgm ent m ay b e c lassified as
secured; (4) the atto rney’s fee po rtio n o f the c laimsho uld b e disallo w ed as
unreaso nab le and unsuppo rted; and (5) the c laimsho uld no t inc lude future
assessm ents b ec ause Deb to r was current po stpetitio n o n tho se ob ligatio ns. Highland Greens filed an o ppo sitio n in whic h it asserted: (1) the N o tic e rec o rded in 2008 c o m plied with all pro c edural requirem ents and in any event had b een adjudic a ted valid b y the state c o urt in the fo rec lo sure lawsuit; (2) Deb to r was b arred b y issue prec lusio n fro mchallenging the validity o f the lien; (3) Highland Greens was entitled under C alifo rnia C ivil C o de § 5650(b )(3) to twelve perc ent interest o n the po st-judgm ent
assessm ents and related fees and c o sts; (4) Highland Greens was entitled to
5sub m it c o st b ills fo r its judgm ent enfo rc em ent ac tivities, which inc reased

the judgm ent am o u nt; and (5) the assessm ent lien was a “c o ntinuing lien”; thus, assessments that b ec am e delinquent after the rec o rdatio n o f the lien were appro priately inc luded in the am o unt secured b y the lien, c iting Bea r C reek Ma ster Ass’n v. Edwa rds , 130 C al. A pp. 4th 1470, 1489 (2005). Deb to r filed a reply in whic h she argued that the Davis-Stirling A c t pro hib ited Highland Green s fro masserting a c o ntinuing lien. She
c o ntended that B ea r

C reek was no t b inding o n the b ankruptcy c o u rt and that federal c o u rts in C alifo rnia had held to the c o ntrary, c iting In re W a rren , N o . 15-C V-03655-Y GR , 2016 WL 1460844 (N .D. C a l. A pr. 13, 2016), and In re Gua

ja rdo, N o . 15-31452 DM, 2016 W L 943613 (Bankr. N .D. C al. Mar. 11, 2016). A t the initial hearing o n Deb to r’s objec t io n, c o u nsel fo r Highland Greens stated that the HO Awas relying o n the assessm ent lien rather than the judgm ent lien as the b asis fo r its secu rity interest. The b ankruptcy c o urt requested further detail as toho w the different c o m p o nents o f the c laim
am o u nt were c alculated and c o ntinued the m atter fo r further b r iefing, which the parties sub m itted. A t the final hearing o n the c laimobjec tio n, the b ankruptcy c o urt did
no t rule o n the reaso nab leness o f the atto rney’s fees o rany o f the o ther argum ents raised b y Deb to r. But it ruled that under applic ab le law there
was noc o ntinuing lien b ased o n the N o tic e. A s such, the o nly b a sis fo r
6Highland Greens’ security interest was its judgm ent lien. 4 A c c o rdingly, the

c o u rt sustained Deb to r’s objec tio n in part, allo wing Highland Greens’
c laimin full b ut rec lassifying it as $29,970.65 sec u red (princ ipal o f $21,398.02 plus pre-petition interest o f $8,572.63) and the $34,166.55 b alanc e as unsecured. Sho rtly thereafter, the c o urt entered its o rder o n the Deb to r’s
c laimobjec tio n, and Highland Greens tim ely appealed. 5 JU RISD ICT ION The b ankruptcy c o urt had jurisdic tio n under 28 U .S.C . §§ 1334 and 157(b )(2)(B). W e have jurisdic tio n under 28 U .S.C . § 158. ISSU E Did the b ankruptcy c o urt err in sustaining in part Deb to r ’s objec tio n to Highland Greens’ c laim ? ST A ND A RD OF RE V I E W This appeal invo lves issues o f statuto ry and c o ntrac t interpretatio n, which we review de no vo . S ee V ea l v. Am . H

o m e Mo rtg. S e rv., Inc. (In re V ea l) , 450 B.R . 897, 918 (9th C ir. BA P 2011) (c itatio ns o m itted) (an o r der sustaining o r o verruling a c laim objec tio n “c an raise legal issues (such as

4 Under Cali for ni alaw, the assessment lien mer ged i nto the j udgment. Diamond Heights Village Ass’n, Inc. v. Financial Freedom Senior Funding Corp. , 196 Cal. App. 4th 290, 301-02 (2011).

5 Hi ghland Gr eens fi led i ts noti ce of appeal on S eptember 4, 2018. It fi led an amended noti ce of appeal si x days later . Two appeal number s wer e assi gned due to admini str ati v e er r or . The appeals wer e thus consoli dated, wi th all paper s to be fi led underBAP No. CC-18-1248. 7the pro per c o nstruc tio n o f statutes and rules) which we review de no vo

. . . .”); R enwick

v. Bennett (In re Bennett) , 298 F.3d 1059, 1064 (9th Cir. 2002) (“Under C alifo rnia law, the interpretatio n o f a c o ntrac t is a question o f law which the c o u rt reviews de no vo .”). D ISCU SSION This appeal requires us todeterm ine whether, under C alifo rnia law, Highland Greens’ assessm ent lien was a c o ntinuing lien o n the Pro perty
such that it secured am o unts that b ec am e delinquent after Highland Greens rec o rded its N o tic e. This is a question o f first im p ressio n fo rthis Panel, and it presents so m e challenges. First, the statute in questio n do es no t expressly address the issue o f an HO A ’s right to a c o ntinuing lien. Sec o nd, the statute referenc es the go verning do cum ents (the C C & R s ), which m ay o rm ay no t c reate a c o ntrac tual b a sis fo r a c o ntinuing lien. Third, C alifo rnia C o urts o f A ppeal have differed signific antly in their
assessm ent o f the po licy to b e enhanc ed b y the Davis-Stirling A c t, i.e., is the purpo se o f the A c t to fac ilitate the expeditio u s c o llec t io n o f HO A
assessm ents o rto safeguard the no tic e rights o f ho m eo wners? These variab les and c o m plexities no twithstanding, we do no t write
o n a b lank judic ial slate: as discussed b elo w, two federal c o urts have
o pined that the Davis-Stirling A c t do es no t pro vide fo r the c o ntinuing lien that Highland Greens seeks. Highland Greens relies princ ipally o n B ea r C reek , an o lder C alifo rnia C o urt o f A ppeal dec isio n to the c o ntrary. But that
8dec isio n, as discussed b elo w, did no t address the m atter o f c o ntinuing liens

as the prim ary issue o n appeal no rdid it c o nsider the A c t’s no t ic e pro visio ns. The c o urt o f appeal instead fo cused o n what it plausib ly b elieved to b e the po lic y underlying the A c t–to fac ilitate HO A s ’ c o llec tio n o f delinquent assessm ents. But its view is no t suppo rted b y the legislative histo ry o r o ther C alifo rnia c a ses. The dec isio n’s ratio nale was, at least indirec tly, c alled into questio n b y a m o re rec ent C alifo rnia C o urt o f A ppeal dec isio n, D ia m o nd v. S uperio r Co urt, 217 C al. A pp. 4th 1172, a s m o dified o n denia l o f reh’g (July 12, 2013), c o nfirm ing that the m o st fundam ental and im po rtant purpo s e o f the statute is topro tec t ho m eo wners (no t
asso c iatio ns), and that the statuto ry requirem ents fo r prec isio n in the no tic e o f lien pro vided to ho m eo wners must o verride any go als o f expeditio n o r c o nvenienc e to asso c iatio ns. A s discussed b elo w, we c o nc lude that there are two independent b ases o n which to affirmthe b ankruptcy c o u rt’s o rder sustaining Deb to r’s
objec tio n in part. First, the language o f the N o tic e and 2011 A m endm ent
c o nflic ts with the applic ab le C C & R s, which do no t autho rize a c o ntinuing lien. Sec o nd, the Davis-Stirling A c t do es no t autho rize a c o ntinuing lien. In
reaching this latter c o nc lusio n, we agree with the reaso ning o f the o ther federal c o u rts to c o nsider this issue that a c o ntinuing lien is inc o nsistent with the A c t’s no t ic e pro visio ns and the expressed legislative purpo se o f the A c t . 9A . T he D av is -StirlingA c t

W e b egin, as we must, with the language o f the relevant statutes. S ee United S ta tes v. R o n Pa ir Enters., Inc. , 489 U .S. 235, 241 (1989); Lee v. H a nley , 61 C al. 4th 1225, 1232-33 (2015). The Davis-Stirling A c t, enac ted in 1985, autho r izes c o ndo m iniumho m eo wners asso c iatio ns tolevy assessm ents. Subj ec t to c ertain lim itatio ns, a ho m eo w ners asso c iatio n “shall levy regular and spec ial assessm ents suffic ient to perfo rmits ob ligatio ns under the go verning do cum ents and this ac t.” C al. C iv. C o d e § 5600. 6 The A c t also sets fo rth pro c edures fo r c o llec ting delinquent assessm ents: (a) Aregular o rspec ial assessm ent and any late charges, reaso nab le fees and c o sts o f c o llec tio n, reaso nab le atto rney's fees, if any, and interest, if any, as determ ined in ac c o rdanc e with sub divisio n (b ), shall b e a deb t o f the o wner o f the separate interest at the tim e the assessm ent o r o ther sum s are levied. (b ) R egular and spec ial assessments levied pursuant tothe go verning do cum ents are delinquent 15 days after they b ec o m e due, unless the dec laratio n pro vides a lo nger tim e perio d, in which c ase the lo nger tim e perio d shall apply. C al. C iv. C o de § 5650. In addition, it autho rizes HO A s to rec o ver reaso nab le c o llec tio n c o sts, inc luding atto rney’s fees, late charges, and interest no t to exc eed twelve perc ent. Id. at § 5650(b )(1)-(3).

6 The Dav i s -S ti r ling Act was r enumber ed in 2014. It i s cur r ently codi fi ed at secti ons 4000-6150 of the Ca li for ni a Ci v i l Code; i t was for m er ly found at secti ons 1350- 1378. 10C alifo rnia C ivil C o d e § 5675 pro vides fo r the plac ing o f a lien o n the

o wner’s interest in the c o ndo m iniumto secure delinquent assessm ents: (a) The am o unt o f the assessm ent, plus any c o sts o f c o llec tio n, late charges, and interest assessed in ac c o rdanc e with sub divisio n (b ) o f Sec tio n 5650, shall b e a lien o n the o wner’s separate interest in the c o m m o n interest develo pm ent fro mand after the tim e the asso c iatio n c auses tob e rec o rded with the c o u nty rec o rder o f the c o unty in which the separate interest is lo c ated, a no tic e o f delinquent assessm ent, which shall state the am o unt o f the assessm ent and o ther sum s im po sed in ac c o rdanc e with sub d ivisio n (b ) o f Sec tio n 5650, a legal desc riptio n o f the o wner’s separate interest in the c o m m o n interest develo pm ent against which the assessm ent and o ther sum s are levied, and the nam e o f the rec o rd o wner o f the separate interest in the c o m m o n interest develo pm ent against which the lien is im po s ed. C al. C iv. C o de § 5675. This sectio n further requires that the no tic e o f delinquent assessm ent m ust b e signed b y a designated perso n and inc lude an item ized statem ent o f charges; it alsorequires a c o py o f the no tic e to b e m ailed b y c ertified m ail to the rec o rd o wner(s). C al. C iv. C o de § 5675(b )-(e). These no tic e requirem ents are to b e stric tly c o nstrued. D ia m o nd, 217 C al. A pp. 4th at 1189. In applying these statutes, we are guided b y (1) the plain language o f the Davis-Stirling A c t as interpreted b y C alifo rnia federal and state c o urts; (2) the pub licpo lic y b ehind the A c t; and (3) princ iples o f statuto ry c o nstruc tio n. And, given that the A c t referenc es the “go verning

11do cum ents,” we alsoc o nsider the term s o f the applic ab le C C & R s .

B. California Federal Cas es Interpreting the D a v is -StirlingA c t The Davis-Stirling A c t itself do es no t pro vide fo r a c o ntinuing lien, and c ase law is sc ant regarding whether the A c t m a y b e fairly interpreted
as sopro viding. Two federal c o urts in the N o rthern Distric t o f C alifo rnia have held that adding future assessm ents to a rec o rded lien securing delinquent assessm ents witho ut rec o rding a new lien is im perm issib le under the Davis-Stirling A c t. In re W a rren , 2016 WL 1460844; In re Gua ja rdo, 2016 WL 943613. In Gua ja rdo, the b ankruptcy c o urt was tasked with determ ining the prio rities b etween an HO A ’s assessment lien and a federal tax lien fo r purpo ses o f distrib u t ing the pro c eeds o f a sale o f pro perty o f the estate. The
no tic e o f delinquent assessm ent at issue in that c ase pro vided, “A dditio nal
m o nies shall ac c r ue under this c laimat the rate o f the c laim ant’s regular
m o nthly o r spec ial assessm ents, plus perm issib le late charges, c o sts o f
c o llec tio n and interest, ac c ruing sub sequent to the date o f this no t ic e.” 2016 W L 943613, at *1. The co urt held that this language was ineffec tive under b o th C alifo rnia c o ntrac tlaw and the Davis-Stirling A c t, fo rtwo reaso ns. First, the C C & R s at issue in that c ase pro vided that each “lienab le default shall c o nstitute a separate b asis fo r a lien.” Id . at *3. The c o urt fo und that the language o f the no tic e that pro vided fo r the lien to inc lude sub sequent assessm ents and related charges was inc o nsistent with this
12pro visio n. Id. at *3. 7

Sec o nd, and im p o rtantly, the c o urt interpreted the language o f C alifo rnia C ivil C o d e § 5675 as limiting an assessm ent lien to the am o unt stated in the no tic e o f delinquent assessm ent. Spec ific ally, the statute pro vides that the am o unt o f the assessm ent (plus c o s ts, late charges, and interest) shall b e a lien o n the o wner’s separate interest. The statute further requires that the no tic e state the am o unt o f the delinquent assessm ent and
o ther sum s. A s such, the c o urt fo und that adding future assessments to an existing lien wo u ld b e “inc o nsistent with the po rtio ns o f the Davis-Stirling A c trequiring the unpaid am o unts to b e spec ific ally set fo rth in the no tic e and in an attached ac c o unting.” Id. at *3. The b ankruptcy c o urt distinguished B e a r Creek . A s discussed b elo w, in that c a se, the C alifo rnia C o urt o f A ppeal held that ho m eo w ners assessm ents that b ec am e due after the rec o rdatio n o f a lien no tic e were pro perly inc luded in a judgm ent fo r lien fo rec lo sure and b reach o f c o ntrac t , b ased o n the applic ab le C C & R s and the pro visio ns o f the Davis-Stirling A c t that, in turn, referenc ed the HO A ’s go verning do cum ents. The Gua ja rdo
c o u rt no ted that the C C & R s in Bea r Creek were m uch m o re spec ificas to future ac c ruals than tho se at issue in the c a se b efo re it, b ut the c o urt also held that “the general im po s itio n o f a ‘present’ lien at the tim e o f and b y

7 The CC&Rs, Noti ce, and 2011 Amendment containlanguage that i s substanti ally si mi lar to the documents at i s sue in Guajardo
. 13o peratio n o f the C C R s with respec t to all future and po tentially unkno wn

assessm ents do es no tsatisfy the no tic e and lien pro visio ns o f the C ivil C o de.” Id. In W a rren , the distric t c o urt affirm ed the b ankruptcy c o urt’s o rder sustaining a deb t o r’s objec t io n to the secured c laimo f an HO Ao n gro unds that the HO A ’s lien was lim ited to the am o unts stated in its no tic e o f lien
assessm ent. 2016 W L 1460844 at *1. A s in G ua ja rdo, the lien no tic e in that
c ase c o ntained language that purpo rted to c o nstitute a pro s pec tive charge fo r future assessm ents and related c o s ts. And like the b ankruptcy c o urt in Gua ja rdo, the distric t c o urt held that this language was im perm issib le under the Davis-Stirling A c t. The c o urt no ted that the pro c edural no t ic e requirem ents o f the Davis-Stirling A c t are to b e stric tly c o nstrued, c iting D ia m o nd, 217 C al. A pp. 4th at 1191, and found that “[t]he Davis-Stirling A c t lim its the lien to the am o u nt spec ified in the no tic e . . . .” Id. at *3-*4. The
c o u rt went o n: “C laim ant sho uld have filed additio nal liens to secure its interest in future unpaid assessm ents. To ho ld o therwise wo uld o ffend the
c o m p rehensive no tic e schem e and ho m eo wners’ rights to c o ntest delinquent assessm ents as estab lished in the Davis-Stirling A c t.” Id. at *4. C. California State Cas es Interpreting the D av is -StirlingA c t In Bea r C reek , the C a lifo rnia Fo urth Distric t C o urt o f A ppeal affirm ed a judgm ent fo rlien fo rec lo sure and b reach o f c o ntrac t b ased o n a c o ndo m iniumo wner’s failure topay assessm ents. 130 C a l. A pp. 4th at
141472. The prim ary issue b efo re the c o urt o f appeal was whether an HO A

m ay charge an o wner assessm ents fo r lo ts o n which c o ndo m iniumunits were planned b u t had no t yet b een b uilt. Id. In affirm ing the trial c o urt’s fo rec lo sure judgm ent, the c o urt o f appeal held that the definitio n o f “c o ndo m inium ” in the Davis-Stirling A c t inc luded unb uilt lo ts in a qualifying c o ndo m iniumplan. Id. at 1481-82. The c o urt o f appeal also affirm ed the trial c o urt’s finding that the HO Ahad pro perly served lien
no tic es o n the o w ner. Id. at 1488. Finally, the c o urt o f appeal c o nsidered the appellant’s argum ent that the trial c o urt had im pro p erly determ ined the
am o u nt o f the lien assessm ents b ec ause it inc luded am o unts that c am e due after the rec o rdatio n o f the lien no t ic e; it fo und that tho se am o u nts were pro perly inc luded. Id. at 1489. The c o urt o f appeal rejec ted the o wner’s argum ent that no “recurring liens” were autho rized under the relevant statutes such that the am o unt o f the assessm ents secured b y the lien was lim ited to the am o u nt initially stated in the lien no tic e. The c o urt no ted that fo r m er C alifo rnia C ivil C o de § 1367 (rec o d ified at § 5675), in desc rib ing the am o unts to b e secured b y the lien, referenc ed fo rm er C alifo rnia C ivil C o de § 1366 (rec o dified at § 5600), which in turn referenc ed the ho m eo wners asso c iatio n’s “go verning do cum ents.” Id. at 1488. Spec ific ally, C a lifo rnia C ivil C o d e § 1367(b ) pro vided: “[t]he am o unt
o f the assessm ent, plus any c o sts o f c o llec tio n, late charges, and interest
15assessed in ac c o rdanc e with Sec tio n 1366, shall b e a lien o n the o wner’s

interest in the c o m m o n interest develo pm ent fro mand after the tim e the
asso c iatio n c auses tob e rec o rded with the c o unty rec o r der o f the c o unty in which the separate interest is lo c ated, a no tic e o f delinquent assessm ent. . . .” Id. at 1488. The c ro ss-referenc ed statute, fo rm er C alifo rnia C ivil C o de § 1366, pro vided, in relevant part: “the asso c iatio n shall levy regular and spec ial assessm ents suffic ient to perfo rm its ob ligatio ns under the go verning do cum ents and this title.” 8 The c o urt next lo o ked to the go verning do cum ents, spec ific ally, the C C & R’s. The C C & R s pro vided that “any dem and o r c laimo f lien o r lien o n ac c o u nt o f prio r delinquenc ies shall b e deem ed to inc lude sub sequent delinquenc ies and am o unts due o n ac c o unt thereo f.” Id. Further, the
rec o r ded lien no tic es pro vided that “[a]dditio nal m o nies shall ac c rue under this c laimat the rate o f the c laim ants’ regular m o nthly o r spec ial
assessm ents, plus perm issib le late charges, c o sts o f c o llec tio n and interest,
ac c ruing sub sequent to the date o f this no t ic e.” Id. Based o n this language, the c o urt o f appeal held that “all o f the sum s inc luded o n the liens and lien
no tic es are autho rized b y the C C & R’s and statuto ry law. The am o unts here determ ined b y the c o urt to b e o wing as liens are no m o re than the
am o u nts autho rized b y the go verning do cum ents and statutes.” Id.

8 That secti on was r ecodi fi ed at Cali for ni a Ci v i l Code § 5600(a) and contains substantively i denti cal language. 16The c o urt o f appeal o p ined that its ho lding was c o nsistent with the

legislative purpo se o f pro viding ho m eo wners asso c iatio ns a quick and effic ient m eans o f seeking relief against a no npaying o wner: W ere the relevant pro visio ns to b e c o nstrued as [the o wner] suggests, the desc rib ed statuto ry purpo s e o f pro viding fo r a quic k and effic ient m eans o f enfo r c ing the C C &R’s wo uld b e serio usly underm ined; each m o nth, o r at such o ther intervals as the assessm ents are charged under a given set o f C C & R’ s, the asso c iatio n wo uld b e required to rec o rd suc c essive liens. A suc c essive rec o rdatio n requirem ent wo uld im po se a heavy— and needless— b urden upo n ho m eo wners’ asso c iatio ns, fraught with risk to the asso c iatio n, and undue windfall tothe delinquent ho m eo wner, sho uld any installm ent b e o verlo o ked. W e are unwilling to c o nstrue C ivil C o de sec tio n 1367 torequire such an o ppressive b urden. Bo th delinquent ho m eo wners and the pub lic at large are plac ed o n no t ic e, with the rec o rdatio n o f the initial assessm ent lien, that sub sequent regularly and spec ially levied assessm ents, if they c o ntinue unpaid, will ac c rue in due c o urse. The purpo se o f the lien no tic e and rec o rdatio n will have b een served, and the asso c iatio n's rem edy justly preserved, b y the initial rec o rdatio n o f lien. Id. at 1489. Two years after the dec isio n in Bea r Creek , the C alifo rnia Sixth Distric t C o urt o f A ppeal held that the no tic e pro visio ns o f the Davis-Stirling A c t are to b e stric tly c o nstrued. D ia m o nd, 217 C al. A pp. 4th at 1189. The issue in D ia m o ndwas whether “sub stantial c o m plianc e” with the pre-lien and prefo rec lo sure no tic e requirem ents o f the Davis-Stirling A c t was suffic ient to perm it an HO Ato pro c eed with fo rec lo s ure. The c o urt o f appeal held that 17it was no t. In its o pinio n, the c o urt o f appeal exam ined the legislative

histo ry o f the A c t and c o nc luded that it was intended to“pro tec t the interest o f a ho m eo wner who has failed to tim ely pay an assessm ent levied b y a ho m eo wners asso c iatio n.” Id. at 1190-91. A s such, the no tic e requirem ents were intended to b e m andato ry. Id. The c o urt o f appeal no ted that its c o nc lusio n was suppo rted b y C alifo rnia Suprem e C o urt prec edent, inc luding Li v. Y ello w Ca b Co . , 13 C al. 3d 804, 815 (1975) (“If a provisio n o f the [C ivil] [C ]o de is plain and
unamb iguo us, it is the duty o f the c o urt to enfo rc e it as it is written.”); Cha se v. Putna m , 117 C al. 364, 367–368 (1897) (“a lien whic h is the c reature
o f statute c an b e enfo rc ed o nly in the m anner presc rib ed b y the statute.”). D ia m o nd, 217 C al. A pp. 4th at 1192-93. D . B e ar Cre e kdoes not c ontrol the outc om e of this appeal. Highland Greens argues that we mu st fo llo w Bea r Creek b ec ause there
are no o ther C alifo rnia state c o urt dec isio ns o n po int. It po ints o ut that in the ab senc e o f a state suprem e c o urt dec isio n o n the issue, a federal c o urt is
ob ligated to fo llo w a dec isio n o f an interm ediate c o urt o f appeal unless there is c o nvinc ing evidenc e that the highest c o urt o f the state wo uld dec ide differently. S ec. Pa c. N a t’l Ba nk v. Kirkla nd (In re Kirkl a nd) , 915 F.2d 1236, 1238-39 (9th Cir. 1990) (c iting A m erica n Tritica le, Inc. v. N ytco S ervices, Inc. , 664 F.2d 1136, 1143 (9th Cir. 1981); S to ner v. N ew Y o rk Life Ins. Co . , 311 U .S. 464, 467 (1940)).
18In predic ting ho w the state’s highest c o urt wo uld dec ide the issue, we

lo o k to “interm ediate appellate c o urt dec isio ns, dec isio ns fro mo ther jurisdic tio ns, statutes, treatises, and restatements as guidanc e.” In re Kirkla nd, 915 F.2d at 1239 (citatio ns o m itted). Bea r C reek appears to b e the
o nly C alifo rnia interm ediate appellate dec isio n addressing the pro p riety o f
c o ntinuing liens under the Davis Stirling A c t. N evertheless, fo r the reaso ns discussed b elo w, we c o nc lude that Bea r Creek is fac tually distinguishab le and that the C alifo rnia Suprem e C o urt wo uld no t likely dec ide the issue in
ac c o r d with Bea r

C reek
. In determ ining that delinquent HO Aassessm ents which c am e due after the rec o rdatio n o f the lien no t ic es were pro perly inc luded in the
am o u nt secu red b y the lien, the c o urt o f appeal in B ea r Creek relied prim arily o n the language o f the C C & R s and the lien no tic es, all o f which pro vided that any lien fo r delinquent HO Aassessm ents wo u ld b e deem ed to inc lude sub sequent delinquenc ies. Bec a u se c ertain pro visio ns o f the A c t referred to the HO A ’ s go verning do cum ents, and tho se do cum ents pro vided fo ra c o ntinuing lien, the Bea r C reek c o urt c o nc luded that the
c o ntinuing lien was c o nsistent with the A c t. Here, ho w ever, the C C & R s dono t pro vide fo r a c o ntinuing lien; as
such, Bea r Creek

is fac tually distinguishab le in a c ritic al respec t, and we
m ay igno r e it. Further and im po rtantly, relevant to o ur antic ipatio n o f the C alifo rnia Suprem e C o urt’s eventual view, the Bea r Creek c o urt o f appeal
19did no t take into ac c o unt the A c t’s no tic e pro visio ns as they pertained to

the issue o f a c o ntinuing lien and failed to c o nsider that, altho ugh o ne purpo se o f the A c t m ay b e to fac ilitate an HO A ’s c o llec tio n o f delinquent
assessm ents, see Bea r Creek , 130 C al. A pp. 4th at at 1489, 9 the c ases c iting direc tly to legislative histo ry em phasize that the purpo se o f the DavisStirling A c t is to pro tec t ho m eo wners. S ee D ia m o nd, 217 C al. A p p. 4th at 1190 (“This b ill go es to the heart o f ho m e o wner rights, to uching upo n the key issue o f when, if ever, a ho m eo wners’ asso c iatio n sho u ld have the right to fo rc e the sale o f a m emb er’s ho m e when the ho m e o wner falls b ehind o n paying o verdue assessm ents o r dues.”) (quo ting A ssem . C o m . o n Judic iary, A nalysis o f Sen. Bill N o . 137 (2005–2006 R eg. Sess.) a s a m endedA pr. 5, 2005, pp. 1–2); Huntingto n Co ntinenta l To wnho use Ass’n, Inc. v. Miner , 230 C al. A pp. 4th 590, 603-04 (2014) (same). A ltho ugh D i a m o nddid no t invo lve the identic al issue raised here, the
o pinio n’s tho ro ugh analysis o f the legislative histo ry and c itatio ns to prec edent all suppo rted its determ inatio n that the requirem ents o f the Davis-Stirling A c t m ust b e stric tly c o nstrued, and suppo rt the c o nc lusio n

9 In concludin g that the pur pose of the Act was to faci li tate collecti on of delinquent assessments, the cour t of appeal i n Bear Creek r eli ed on quoted language fr om Park Place Estates Homeowners Ass’n v. Naber , 29 Cal. App. 4th 427, 432 (1994) (“Because homeowner s associ ati ons would cease to exi st wi thout r egular payment of assessment fees, the Legi slatur e has cr eated pr ocedur es forassoci ati ons to qui ckly and effi c i ently seek r eli ef against a non-paying owner .”). But the cour t of appeal in Park Place Estates di d not suppor t i ts conclusi on by any ci tati on to legi slati v e hi stor y. 20that the C alifo rnia Suprem e C o urt wo uld no tfo llo w B e a r Creek . This

c o nc lusio n is b o lstered b y the analysis in Gua ja r do and W

a rren . A s no ted b y the Distric t C o urt fo r the N o rthern Distric t o f C alifo rnia: The Davis-Stirling A c t reflec ts the legislature’s intent to im po se and rigo r o usly enfo rc e its pro c edural requirem ents to pro tec t the interest o f the ho m eo wner. S ee D i a m o nd v. S uperio r Co urt, 217 C al. A pp. 4th 1172, 1191 (2013) (the pro c edural no tic e requirem ents presc rib ed in the Davis-Stirling A c t m u st b e “stric tly c o nstrued” such that “sub stantial c o m p lianc e is insuffic ient”). A c c o r dingly, the C o urt finds that the language o f the 2008 Lien purpo rting to secure future assessm ents is no t perm issib le under the Davis-Stirling A c t. In re W a rren , 2016 WL 1460844, at *4. A pplying these princ iples to the m atter b efo re us, we c o nc lude that here, the N o tic e and 2011 A m endm ent, which purpo rted to secu re future
assessm ents, were (1) inc o nsistent with the applic ab le C C & R s; and (2) im perm issib le under the Davis-Stirling A c t , which lim its the lien to the
am o u nt spec ified in the no tic e, see C a l. C iv. C o d e § 5675(a); in turn, the
no tic e m ust inc lude an item ized statem ent sho wing the delinquent
assessm ents (and related fees and c o sts) o wing at the tim e o f the no tic e. S ee C al. C iv. C o de § 5660(b ); S ee a lso In re Gua ja r do, 2016 WL 943613, at *2-*3. E . Hig hland Greens ’ argum ents in s upport of its interpretation of the D av is Stirling A c t are inc ons is tent with es tablis hed princ iples of s tatutory c ons truc tion. In the ab senc e o f evidenc e o f c o ntrary legislative intent, c o urts are to

21fo llo w the princ iple o f statuto ry c o nstruc tio n, expressiounius est exclusio

a lterius , o r “the expressio n o f o ne thing in a statute o rdinarily im p lies the
exc lusio n o f o ther things.” In re J.W
. , 29 C al. 4th 200, 209 (2002). S ee a lso People v. Guz m a n , 35 C al. 4th 577, 587 (2005) (“[I]nsert[ing] additional language into a statute vio late[s] the c ardinal rule o f statuto r y c o nstruc tio n that c o u rts must no t add pro visio ns to statutes.”)(sec o nd and third alteratio ns in o r iginal)(quo ting S ec. Pa c. N a t’l Ba nk v. W

o z a b , 51 C al. 3d 991, 998 (1990)); C al. C iv. Pro c . C o de § 1858 (“In the c o nstruc t io n o f a statute o r instrum ent, the o ffic e o f the Judge is sim p ly to asc ertain and dec lare what is in term s o r in sub s tanc e c o ntained therein, no t to insert what has b een o m itted, o r to o m it what has b een inserted; and where there are several pro visio ns o r particulars, such a c o nstruc tio n is, if po ssib le, to b e ado pted as will give effec t to all.”). Highland Greens argues that c ertain pro visio ns o f the Davis-Stirling A c tsuppo rt its c o ntentio n that a c o ntinuing lien is perm itted under that A c t . First, it no tes that C alifo rnia C ivil C o de § 5650 perm its c o llec tio n c o sts to b e added to the am o unt secured b y the lien, when tho se c o sts are generally inc u r red after the lien is rec o rded. 1 0 But this pro visio n do es no t suppo rt Highland Greens’ po sitio n. To the c o ntrary, the legislature’s

1 0 Cali for ni a Ci v i l Code § 5650 mer ely li sts the types of costs that may be added to the amount of deli nquent assessments. Califor n i a Ci v i l Code § 5675 pr ov i des that the assessed costs and i

nter est wi ll be par t of the li en. 22o m issio n o f sub sequent delinquent assessm ents fro mthe list o f charges

autho r ized stro ngly indic ates that it did no t intend tho s e am o unts to b e added. Despite the ab o ve argum ent, Highland Greens also c o ntends that, if we affirmthe b ankruptcy c o urt’s ruling, it wo uld m ean that a delinquent
o wner wo uld b e ab le to sto p a fo r ec lo sure sale b y paying o nly the fac e am o u nt o f the lien witho u t paying the c o s ts o f enfo rc ing the lien, apparently assum ing an HO Awo uld need to rec o rd separate liens to
secure c o llec tio n c o sts. But, as Highland Greens po ints o ut, the statute explic itly pro vides that the lien m ay inc lude c o llec tio n c o sts. Sec o nd, Highland Greens c ites C alifo rnia C ivil C o de § 5720(b )(2), which perm its an HO Ato rec o rd a lien fo r less than $1,800 b ut requires the HO Ato wait to fo rec lo se until the am o unt o f delinquent assessm ents
exc eeds that am o u nt (o rthe assessm ents secured b y the lien b ec o m e m o re than twelve m o nths delinquent). 1 1 Highland Greens argues that, b ec ause

1 1 That statute pr ov i des, in r elev ant par t: An associ ati on that seeks to collect deli n quent r egular or speci al assessments of an amount less than one thousand eight hundr ed dollar s ($1,800), not including any acceler ated assessments, late char ges, fees and costs of collecti on, attor ney's fees, or inter est, may not collect that debt thr ough j udi ci al or nonj udi ci al for eclosur e, but may attempt to collect or secur e that debt i n any of the following ways:

. . . . (2) By r ecor ding a li en on the owner ’s separ ate i n ter est upon whi ch (continued...) 23this pro visio n apparently allo ws fo r the additio n o f sub sequent delinquent

assessm ents to the lien am o unt, anylien m ay inc lude such assessm ents witho ut requiring a new no tic e. But the fac t that this pro visio n applies o nly to liens securing am o unts less than $1,800 suppo rts the c o nc lusio n that it
exc ludes liens securing higher am o unts. In o ther wo r ds, the pro visio n m ay fairly b e interpreted as an exc eptio n to the general rule pro hib iting additio n o f delinquenc ies witho ut spec ificno tic e. A dditio nally, this pro visio n, as written, pro m o tes the purpo se o f pro tec ting “o wners’ equity in their ho m es when they fail to pay relatively sm a ll assessm ents to their
c o m m o n interest develo pm ent asso c iatio ns.” D ia m o nd, 217 C al. A pp. 4th at 1190 (quo ting Sen. C o m . o n Judic iary, A nalysis o f Sen. Bill N o . 137 (2005–2006 Reg. Sess.) Mar. 29, 2005, p. 1.). As stated b y the distric t c o urt in W a rren : Sec tio n 5720(b )(2) sim ply pro vides an asso c iatio n with the o ptio n to wait to rec o rd the lien until delinquent assessm ents exc eed $1,800. A lternatively, the asso c iatio n m ay rec o rd the lien and wait a year tofo rec lo se thereo n. . . . Sec tio n 5720(b )(2) do es no t allo w an asso c iatio n to b ypass the no tic e and rec o rding

1 1 (...continued) the associ ati on may not for eclose unti l the amount of the deli n quent assessments secured by the li en, exclusiv e of any acceler ated assessments, late char ges, fees and costs of collecti on, attor ney’s fees, or in ter est, equals or exceeds one thousand e i ght hundr ed dollar s ($1,800) orthe assessments secur ed by the li en ar e mor e than 12 months delinquent. . . . Cal. Ci v . Code § 5720(b)(2). 24requirem ents in Sec tio ns 5660, 5670, and [5675] merely b ec ause

the initial lien sec ures an am o unt b elo w the $1,800 thresho ld to initiate fo rec lo sure pro c eedings. In re W a rren , 2016 WL 1460844, at *4 (fo o tno te o m itted). F. Hig hland Greens ’ polic y argu m e nts are c ontradic ted by the California Court of A ppeal’sholdingin D iamond . Finally, Highland Greens, (jo ined b y am ic us curiae C o m m unity A sso c iatio ns Institute), urges us tofo llo w Bea r Creek and reverse the b ankruptcy c o urt b ec ause todo o therwise wo uld negatively im pac t all C alifo rnia HO A s and their m emb ers. Highland Greens c o ntends that HO A s wo uld have to rec o rd liens fo r delinquent assessm ents o n a m o nthly b asis tosecure all am o unts o wed, and that do ing so wo uld result in higher
c o llec tio n c o sts that wo uld then b e passed on to the delinquent o wner. This argum ent is c ertainly c o nsistent with the c o urt o f appeal’s
c o m m ents in Bea r Creek , 130 C al. A pp. 4th at 1489. But it igno res the fac t that the Davis-Stirling A c t “reflec ts the legislature’s intent to im po se and rigo ro usly enfo r c e its pro c edural requirem ents to pro tec t the interest o f the ho m eo wner.” In re W

a rren , 2016 WL 1460844, at *4 (citing D ia m o nd, 217 C al. A pp. 4th at 1191). While we ac kno wledge that requiring HO A s to file “suc c essive liens” im po s es a b urden, that is an issue fo rthe legislature to address. CONCL U SION Bec ause we find no erro r in the b ankruptcy c o urt’s interpretatio n o f
25C alifo rnia law, we A FFIRM.

26