Opinion ID: 1199648
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The coffee shop

Text: Bennett also argues that approving plans for the use of one unit as a coffee shop violated the CC & Rs and constituted a breach of fiduciary duty. She notes that an amendment to the CC & Rs prohibited the use of a commercial unit as a restaurant or food store. Cronen's affidavit states that the board allowed the coffee shop [i]n reliance on a legal opinion as to the validity of an amendment to the By-laws. Bennett reasons that [t]his opinion of counsel, unlike a decision of a court, binds no one and is just that, a mere opinion. She also notes, and Weimar acknowledged, that the board obtained the legal advice only after approving the opening of the coffee shop. The superior court concluded that enforcement of the amendment to the CC & Rs was not an option because counsel advised the board that the amendment was invalid. The court also noted that Bennett proffer[ed] no evidence that the initial approval and subsequent acquiescence of the coffee shop's operation [were] contrary to the interests of the Association or intended to personally benefit [Weimar]. In support of his summary judgment motion, Weimar submitted the attorney's letter opining that the amendment relied upon by Bennett was invalid. The board could permissibly rely on that letter to decline to enforce the amendment. Bennett introduced no evidence that the board's refusal to enforce the amendment, after obtaining counsel's advice that it was invalid and unenforceable, was unreasonable. Bennett's attorney effectively conceded as much in oral argument before our court. We therefore affirm summary judgment on this issue.