A Superior Court judge has supported a neighbor's Small Claims Court victory in a disagreement with the Rancho Murieta Association over the RMA's handling of exclusive uses of common land.

The ruling by Superior Court Judge James Henke, dated Thursday, says simply that the RMA must pay neighbor Wilbur Haines $500, the amount awarded Haines in a Small Claims Court hearing before a court commissioner in January.

At the April 18 appeal proceedings in Small Claims Court, Henke indicated how he was leaning in the case but warned that too much shouldn't be read into his ruling.

"My decision has no binding power even assuming another party came before the court and another judge decided a different way. ... In other words, there's no legal precedence as far as Small Claims matters," he said at the outset of the 40-minute session. "That being said, I basically agree with (the commissioner) who heard the case originally ..."

Haines has said he filed the suit to help the RMA read the legal winds relative to the association's interpretation of a statute that took effect in 2006.

The RMA's interpretation, supported by legal opinion, is that the board is able to vote to approve exclusive uses because 60 percent of the community approved CC&Rs giving them that right a decade ago. Haines argues that the law requires 67 percent approval of the membership to issue new exclusive uses unless the CC&Rs specify a different percentage.

Under the planned development ordinance enacted in 1977 and current RMA CC&Rs, owners of cottage, townhouse and circle lots can lease up to 1,200 square feet of common area immediately adjacent to their homes for heating and air conditioning equipment, propane tanks, decking, unroofed patios, landscaping and swimming pools.

At last week's hearing, RMA lawyer Steven Weil of Berding & Weil argued that the RMA's governing documents give the association the power to grant exclusive uses.

"This board has simply followed the CC&Rs," he said. "And the power in the board isn't inherent. It was given to the board by a vote of the members. So any judgment that this court makes ... cannot help but -- to put it bluntly -- invade the province of the exercise of discretion by a board given it by the members."

• Previous coverage: Court hears RMA appeal of ruling on exclusive use of common land [0] (April 19, 2008)