FERWERDA v. BORDON
Filed 3/25/11
CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION*
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(Placer)
----
| ROBERT FERWERDA, Plaintiff, Cross-defendant and Appellant, v. DAVID BORDON et al., Defendants, Cross-defendants and Respondents; JAMES WARE et al., Cross-complainants, Cross-defendants and Respondents. | C062389 (Super. Ct. Nos. SCV19417, TCV949, TCV1156) |
STORY CONTINUE FROM PART I….
III
The Trial Court Applied The Correct Legal Standard In Finding The Denial Of Ferwerda's Building Plan In 2001 Was Proper
Ferwerda contends the trial court applied the wrong legal standard when it determined the committee did not act unreasonably or arbitrarily in denying his building plans in 2001. According to Ferwerda, the applicable legal standard was â€
| Description | This appeal follows a trial by reference[1] of three consolidated cases. The trial court entered judgment against plaintiff Robert Ferwerda, who had been trying to build a home on his vacant lot. He had sued the Bear Creek Planning Committee (the committee) and the individuals who comprised the Bear Creek Valley Board (the board) who he contended inappropriately blocked construction on his lot. He had also sued his next-door neighbors, James and Cindy Ware (the Wares), contending they had violated the covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CC&R's) in building and remodeling their house. Ferwerda appeals from a judgment entered in favor of the committee, the board, and the Wares, which included awards of attorney fees to the committee and the Wares. We affirm the judgment as to the committee and the Wares, except as it relates to the attorney fees. As to those orders, we reverse. Finally, as to the board, we dismiss as moot the appeal relating to it. |
| Rating |
