Case Background
George Chih-Lun Yu and Frances Ho owned 1921 Broderick Street in San Francisco, a three-story Victorian home built in the 1880s, and lived there since 2002. Mart Albert Haitjema and Elaine Wai Yin Chow bought the neighboring unit at 1919 Broderick Street in December 2020. The two units made up the 1919–1921 Broderick Street Homeowners Association, governed by CC&Rs recorded in November 2020. A roof deck built above 1919 in 1999 belonged exclusively to 1921 and could be reached only from the top floor of Yu and Ho's home.
Shortly after the December 2020 purchase, the Haitjemas experienced leaks in the rear wall of 1919. According to the complaint, the repairs that followed were defective, incomplete, and done without a permit by an unlicensed handyman named Juan Carlos Vasquez Ramirez, who also did business as "123 Painting." In January 2023, the Haitjemas told Yu and Ho that the roof of 1919 needed urgent repair, work that required removing the shared deck. Yu and Ho offered contractors and roofers for the joint job, but the Haitjemas declined to work with any of them and instead turned again to Ramirez. On February 14, 2023, Mart Haitjema asked to take over as HOA president in place of George Yu, and Yu and Ho agreed. The Haitjemas then pulled a second building permit that described 1919 as a single-family home rather than a condominium, which the complaint alleges let them bypass the Association authorization the CC&Rs required.
During the work, thieves used scaffolding erected at the property to attempt a break-in at 1921. Separately, the complaint alleges that a tarp tied by Defendants' employees to non-structural elements of the deck — the rear pergola and a chimney — tore loose in high winds, destroying the pergola and causing further damage to the deck before construction had even begun. Contractors later tore off the deck and cut through the front and rear parapets; the city cited the Haitjemas with a Notice of Violation for removing the front parapet beyond the scope of their permit. The Haitjemas installed metal struts on the roof that the complaint alleges blocked part of the deck from being rebuilt. The complaint also alleges that once the work concluded, Haitjema and Chow declined to pay their employees, including Ramirez, because the project's cost had exceeded their original $40,000 quote, and that Elaine Chow acknowledged Ramirez was upset about the unpaid balance.
Cause
Yu and Ho sued for breach of CC&Rs, breach of fiduciary duty, and injunctive relief. Haitjema and Chow filed a cross-complaint against Yu and Ho for breach of CC&Rs, private nuisance, and negligence.
Injury
Yu and Ho alleged that the destruction of their roof deck, the removal of the parapets, and defective roofing work damaged their property and lowered its value, and that they lost the use of the deck. Haitjema and Chow alleged in their cross-complaint that conditions at 1921 harmed their health and interfered with their use of 1919.
Damages Sought
Yu and Ho sought compensatory damages above the Court's jurisdictional minimum, punitive damages on the fiduciary duty claim, and attorney's fees and costs under the CC&Rs and the Davis-Stirling Act. Haitjema and Chow sought damages on their cross-claims for breach of CC&Rs, private nuisance, and negligence.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
Legal Representation
Plaintiffs: George Chih-Lun Yu | Frances Ho, Trustees of the George Chih-Lun Yu and Frances Ho AB Living Trust dated June 14, 2004
· Counsel for Plaintiffs: John Worden | Zoe Gallagher
Defendants: Mart Albert Haitjema | Elaine Wai Yin Chow
· Counsel for Defendants: Scott Emblidge | Kris Cox | Gianna Geil
Key Arguments or Remarks by Counsel
Claims
Yu and Ho argued that the Haitjemas violated the CC&Rs by repairing the roof without Association approval, hiring unlicensed workers, and pulling a permit that misrepresented 1919 as a single-family home to sidestep the CC&Rs' approval requirements. They argued that the Haitjemas destroyed structural members of the deck even though the permit required half of them to be preserved and reused, and that the Haitjemas cut off the front and rear parapets beyond what the permit allowed. Yu and Ho argued that Mart Haitjema, as HOA president, and Elaine Chow, who took over supervision of the project in March 2023, owed the Association fiduciary duties and breached them by directing the work for their own benefit and by declining to replace the deck once the roof was finished. Both Defendants acknowledged in their depositions that they owed the Association fiduciary duties tied to protecting property value. Yu and Ho pointed to a text message in which Mart Haitjema instructed a contractor to switch cost figures so a larger share of the expense fell on Yu and Ho, and to a message in which Elaine Chow said watching Frances Ho react to the loss of her deck "br[ought] her joy." Yu and Ho argued that this conduct amounted to malice, oppression, or fraud sufficient to support punitive damages.
Defense
Haitjema and Chow generally denied the allegations in the complaint. They raised several affirmative defenses, including that the complaint failed to state a claim, that Yu and Ho failed to mitigate their damages, that Yu and Ho's own conduct barred or reduced recovery under the doctrines of waiver, estoppel, and unclean hands, that Yu and Ho were negligent in the matters described in the complaint, and that any obligation the Haitjemas owed had become impossible to perform because of Yu and Ho's own acts and conduct. On their cross-complaint, Haitjema and Chow alleged that Yu and Ho breached the CC&Rs, created a private nuisance, and acted negligently toward them.
Jury Verdict
The jury reached its verdict on May 22, 2025, following a trial held on April 28 through May 2, May 5, May 6, May 8, May 12 through May 15, and May 19 through May 23, 2025. On Yu and Ho's claim for breach of CC&Rs, the jury found that Haitjema and Chow had breached the CC&Rs and that the breach harmed Yu and Ho, and it awarded $120,000 in damages. On the Haitjemas' cross-claim for breach of CC&Rs, the jury found that Yu and Ho also breached the CC&Rs but that this breach did not harm Haitjema and Chow, so it awarded no damages on that claim.
On the fiduciary duty claim, the jury found that Haitjema and Chow breached a fiduciary duty owed to Yu and Ho, but it found that the breach was not a substantial factor in causing Yu and Ho's harm. The verdict form instructed the jury to stop and sign the form if it answered that question "No." The jury nonetheless went on to answer the punitive damages question, finding that Yu and Ho had not proven by clear and convincing evidence that Haitjema and Chow acted with malice, oppression, or fraud.
On the Haitjemas' crossclaims for private nuisance and negligence, the jury found that Yu and Ho did not create a condition harmful to health and were not negligent, so it awarded no damages to Haitjema and Chow on either claim.
The Court signed the judgment on June 3, 2025; it was filed on June 4, 2025. The judgment awarded Yu and Ho $120,000 against Haitjema and Chow, and entered judgment in favor of Yu and Ho on all of the Haitjemas' cross-claims, awarding no damages to Haitjema and Chow. The Court stated it would address any claim for attorney's fees and costs in a separate ruling.
Court documents are available upon request at [email protected]
