Not from me. From the plaintiff homeowners association in Pacific Hills Homeowners Assn. v. Prun, case no. G038244 (4th Dist. Mar. 20, 2008).
The plaintiff association prevailed at trial, getting an injunction requiring the defendant to comply with covenants, conditions and restrictions and architectural guidelines by modifying a structure on their property. So far so good, but the judgment also required the homeowners association to pay two-thirds of the cost, so long as certain conditions were met. So when the defendant appealed, the association cross-appealed, arguing that the court was wrong to make it responsible for costs in moving the gate.
The association then asserted — apparently in its briefs, since the court does not mention a motion — that its appeal was moot because the defendant had not timely met the conditions triggering the association’s obligation to pay. In light of this contention, the association apparently asked the court of appeal to rule that the association no longer had an obligation to pay because the time for satisfying the conditions had passed. The reasons the court gives for declining to do so should have been anticipated by the association:
Plaintiff asserts that its appeal “is apparently moot” because defendants did not timely elect to move the gate back at least 20 feet from the property line, and asks for a “clarification of the effect of the passage of [the] time lines” set out in the judgment. We decline to do so. There is nothing in the record to show what occurred after judgment was entered with respect to the gate. Nor do we give advisory opinions. [Citation.]