Marquez Knolls homeowners received encouraging news on July 20 when the California Court of Appeal affirmed their right to prevent home expansions that unreasonably obstruct views. The appeal involved a room addition by Marquez Knolls residents Lloyd McAdams and Heather Baines that partially obstructed the ocean view of their Turquesa Lane neighbors, John and Jalene Zabrucky. The court’s decision overturned a lower court action in 2001 in which Superior Court Judge Patricia Collins found that the Marquez Knolls’ Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (CC&Rs) reference to “structures” included fences, hedges and landscaping and not to the main dwelling. Not satisfied with the lower court decision, the Zabruckys appealed to the appellate court and hired Don Franzen, a Palisades resident who specializes in business, real estate and entertainment law, to represent them. The court ruled 2 to 1 that the restrictive clause of the CC&Rs “prohibits the erection of any structures which obstruct views on an adjoining property.” The majority opinion took special note of the importance and value of ocean views in Pacific Palisades: “The prime thing the Marquez Knolls development sold its prospective homeowners was a beautiful ocean view. In fact, like most such housing, much of the value of any property within the development depends on the quality of the view. To significantly obstruct any homeowner’s view of the Pacific Ocean is to depreciate the economic worth of their property.” Franzen said, “The decision of the panel’that structures include room expansions’seems like common sense, but to reach this decision the court had to consider and harmonize three other decisions, each involving different facts and slightly different CC&Rs.” The first case, in 1971, involved the addition of a “rumpus room” that blocked an adjacent homeowner’s view. The appellate court found that the language of those CC&Rs (“No…structure shall be…erected…upon any lot in such location or in such height as to unreasonably obstruct the view of any other lot”) prohibited building the rumpus room. A decision in another case 10 years later, however, limited the CC&R language to landscaping elements: “No hedge or hedgerow, or wall or fence or other structure shall be planted, erected, located or maintained upon any lot in such location or in such height as to unreasonably obstruct the view from any other lot or lots on said tract. A third case, decided in 1979, involved a pine tree that had grown to the point of blocking a neighbor’s view. The court affirmed a trial-court decision limiting the height of the pine tree to one story, thus setting a precedent allowing the trial court to order tree heights shortened to protect ocean views. While the Zabrucky case upholds Marquez homeowners’ right to prevent new construction that unreasonably obstructs views, questions still remain, according to Marquez homeowner Bill Fado, who established the CC&R Review Committee in 1995 to help mediate view controversies. “Each case is unique and each depends strictly and solely on topography of the view and the lot in question,” said Fado, who has helped 150 homeowners resolve view issues without going to court. There are 1,200 homes in the Marquez Knolls Property Owners Association (MKPOA). Pleased with the court outcome, Fado nevertheless offered a cautionary note. Noting that the court supports the validity of the CCRs, he lamented the need to take the issue to court in the first place. “What if you don’t have the money to sue somebody?” he asked. Fado told the Palisadian-Post that in the last year, the CC&R Review Committee had suspended operations because the homeowners’ association had been sued as a consequence of another disputed viewsite between neighbors. Although the homeowner ultimately dropped the suit against MKPOA, the organization has been left to consider its vulnerability to lawsuits. “The issue is that currently our insurance carrier has taken the position that its policy excludes activities of the CC&R Review Committee, and even with a new policy, we don’t know if we would be completely indemnified,” Fado said. “Let’s say we go another year, someone sues us, the amount of time we have to spend to defend ourselves leaves you wondering if it’s worth it.” Fado said that the board has clocked about 600 volunteer hours so far in research and depositions related to the lawsuit. “Can the board expose its volunteer members and the MKPOA to another future lawsuit?” he asked. Even though all applicable CC&Rs will continue to be enforceable, Fado said that the suspension of the Review Committee is unfortunate. “What it has taken away from the community is a tragedy because the Review Committee eliminated a lot of aggravation.”
This page is available to subscribers. Click here to sign in or get access.
