A couple who sued their former golf course for not selling them a new golf club membership after they sold their old membership had their case appropriately handled by Riverside Superior Judge Kira Klatchko, a unified Fourth Appellate District panel said Dec. 10.
Appellants argued that Klatchko erred in granting the golf club’s motion for summary judgment, and erred in denying the appellants’ third amended complaint.
To sell or to keep
The La Quinta couple, Scott and Carmella Bryan, owned a membership at the Citrus Club through the home they owned in the golf community, according to the unpublished ruling.
In March, 2017, they attempted to sell both the house and the membership, while applying for a new membership tied to their condominium. The golf club told the Bryans that they could transfer the membership to the condominium if they didn’t sell the membership; or they could pay $30,000 in membership fees and $42,000 in back dues and trail fees to buy a new membership, the ruling said. The Bryans tried to pass along the $42,000 to the prospective owners of their home, which caused the buyers to back out of the deal.
In July, 2017, The Bryans initiated the action for declaratory relief, to get the club to retract its demand for back dues, the ruling said.
In January, 2018, the Bryans sold their home and membership, and applied for a new membership, without paying the requested back dues the next day, the ruling said.
On Feb. 1, 2018, the couple amended the complaint, alleging they had a right to purchase new memberships without paying the back dues, and requesting a court order saying so. Thirteen days later, the club rejected their application, the ruling said.
Judgment
On March 26, 2019, the court granted summary judgment in favor of the club, stating the court “cannot compel (the club) to offer (plaintiffs) membership under the undisputed facts of this case, which do not raise Constitutional concerns,” the ruling said.
It “would be futile to allow (plaintiffs), at this point in the litigation, to amend their pleading to add an additional cause, or causes, of action for damages because the undisputed facts are that the damages alleged resulted from (plaintiffs’) own conduct and not from any malfeasance or misfeasance by (the club).”
The couple had claimed damage to their friendships and social lives, a claim that the court could not hold the club responsible for, the ruling said.
The couple submitted a third amended complaint alleging breach of contract, negligence and fraud. The court denied the third amended complaint on the grounds that there were no new facts, circumstances or law to support reconsideration, the ruling said.
Meritless appeal
The Bryans filed their appeal July 1, 2019. They argued Klatchko erred in granting the club’s motion for summary judgment, because the constitutional freedom of association has limited application to the Citrus Club, which operates for profit and does not have an expressive purpose related to the freedom of association, the ruling said.
They argued Klatchko erred in denying their request to amend their second amended complaint, because the amendment would prove the club’s decisions could be judicially reviewed.
The appellate court found no merit for either part of the appeal, the ruling said.
Parties
Daniel Parlow of Knighten & Parlow represented the Bryans.
Daniel Maguire and Nancy Jerian Marr of Burke, Williams & Sorenson represented the Citrus Club.
Fourth District Court of Appeal Associate Justice Art McKinster wrote the ruling, which Presiding Justice Manuel Ramirez and Associate Justice Michael Raphael joined.
Riverside Court Number: PSC1704073
Appellate Court Number: E073117
Read the ruling here.
