36 Cal. App. 5th 626
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2019Background
- Neighbors in Pacific Palisades (Eisens at 1145 Lachman Ln; Tavangarians/619 Properties at 1134) disputed renovations at 1134 that added roof equipment, extended second-story walls, a cantilevered roof, a glass bathroom enclosure, a small deck, and taller hedges.
- The tract (Marquez Knolls, tract 20305) is governed by 1962 CC&Rs; paragraphs at issue: ¶1 (limits on two‑story dwellings), ¶2 (architectural-committee plan approval, with a sunset), and ¶11 (limits on hedges/fences and prohibition on structures/landscaping that obstruct views).
- Eisens sued for injunction and damages (loss of view), alleging ¶1 and ¶11 prohibit the contested alterations; trial court agreed and ordered removal/modification of several features and awarded $39,000 interim damages.
- Trial court relied on Zabrucky v. McAdams (129 Cal.App.4th 618) to treat ¶11 as restricting alterations to dwellings and construed ¶1 to bar expansions of an approved second story that “detract” (without adding “unreasonably”).
- On appeal, this court held ¶2’s plan‑approval requirement expired by its sunset clause and concluded neither ¶1 nor ¶11 restrict renovations or alterations to a previously approved residence; only the hedge-height limit in ¶11 remains enforceable as written.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Eisen) | Defendant's Argument (Tavangarian/619) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ¶1 bars post‑approval alterations/expansions of a two‑story residence | ¶1 forbids any alteration that enlarges or changes a previously approved second story (absolute view protection) | ¶1 governs only initial authorization of two‑story homes; it does not prohibit later renovations | Court: ¶1 defines permitted dwelling types/height; it does not by itself bar subsequent renovations—¶2 (now expired) governed plan approval and alterations. |
| Whether ¶11 applies to renovations/additions to an existing residence (i.e., ‘‘any structures’’) | ¶11’s phrase “any structures” includes additions/alterations to residences and thus bars (or limits) remodeling that obstructs views | ¶11 addresses outbuildings/landscaping (hedges, fences, outbuildings) and does not regulate alterations of the residence itself | Court: ¶11 does not apply to remodeling of an existing residence; context (¶3, ¶6, ¶2) limits “structures” in ¶11 to outbuildings/landscaping, not the dwelling. |
| Effect of expiration of ¶2 (architectural committee approval) on enforceability of view restrictions | Expiration leaves no possibility to authorize exceptions; thus ¶1/¶11 must be read to prohibit later changes that affect views | Expiration of ¶2 abolishes preapproval requirement; it does not create a blanket prohibition on renovations—owners may renovate without committee approval | Court: ¶2’s sunset eliminated the plan‑approval precondition; after expiration owners could proceed with remodeling without committee approval; view restrictions do not arise from ¶1/¶11 to bar such renovations. |
| Validity of injunctions and damages awarded for all alterations | Eisens entitled to injunction and interim damages for all view‑impacting features (first and second story, equipment, hedges) | Defendants argued waiver/estoppel and alternative readings of CC&Rs; sought to defeat broad injunction and damages | Court: Affirmed only injunction as to hedges (¶11 three‑foot limit); reversed remainder of injunction and damages; remanded for new damages trial limited to recoverable hedge violation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Zabrucky v. McAdams, 129 Cal.App.4th 618 (Cal. Ct. App.) (majority held ¶11 applies to alterations of dwellings and imported an "unreasonably" limitation)
- White v. Dorfman, 116 Cal.App.3d 892 (Cal. Ct. App.) (interpret CC&Rs as a whole; avoid reading catchall phrases to swallow specific provisions)
- Seligman v. Tucker, 6 Cal.App.3d 691 (Cal. Ct. App.) (upheld injunction ordering removal/lowering of an added rumpus‑room roof that obstructed neighbor's view)
- Carma Developers (Cal.), Inc. v. Marathon Dev. Cal., Inc., 2 Cal.4th 342 (Cal.) (express terms should not be varied by implied terms; caution on importing unstated qualifiers)