Plaintiff homeowners sued to cancel amended CC&Rs which changed their subdivision into a common interest development governed by the defendant association, a nonprofit corporation with the power to assess member-homeowners and acquire property as common areas, bringing the subdivision under the Davis-Sterling Act.  Plaintiffs claimed that the homeowner votes to approve the amendment were insufficient in number and land area to satisfy the prior CC&Rs requirements for amendment, contained forged signatures, and had been obtained by false representations.  Held, insofar as the claim was based on insufficient number or land area, it was time-barred.  Plaintiffs could not rely on delayed discovery because the recorded amended CC&Rs included a declaration that attached the votes in favor of the amended CC&Rs.  Those recorded documents put plaintiffs on inquiry notice of the number and land area of votes in favor.  However, the public record did not disclose whether signatures were forged or given in reliance on misrepresentations.  Those aspects of the claim were discovered only when additional private records were made available to plaintiffs within three years of filing suit and so were timely.  However, those aspects of the claim were properly dismissed because despite three amendments they remained alleged without the specificity required of fraud claims.