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)

Superior Court of Placer County, Nos. SCV19417, TCV949, and TCV1156, Scott Snowden, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21.). Reversed in part and affirmed in part.

Thomas & Associates and Michael W. Thomas, for Plaintiff, Cross-defendant, and Appellant.

Law Offices of Samuel G. Grader and Christian B. Green; Porter & Simon and James E. Simon; Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, Jeffry A. Miller, Judith M. Tishkoff, and Matthew B. Stucky for Defendant, Cross-defendant, and Respondent Bear Creek Planning Committee.

Porter Scott, Timothy M. Blaine and John F. Doyle for Defendants, Cross-defendants, and Respondents David Bordon, Richard E. Irving, Peter M. Turner, Irene Wertheim, Ronald Scoglio, Carole Lynn Keller, and Bear Creek Valley Board.

Louis A. Basile, A Professional Corporation and Louis A. Basile for Cross-complainants, Cross-defendants, Respondents James Ware and Cindy Ware.


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.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
A
Introduction
Robert Ferwerda owns lot No. 134 in Alpine Meadows Estates Subdivision Unit No. 4 (subdivision No. 4). Since 2001, he has been trying to obtain approval to build a house on his lot. This litigation surrounds events related to securing that approval, interpretation of the CC&R's and related restrictions on the lots in subdivision No. 4, and the resolution of the three cases consolidated in the trial court.
B
The CC&R's, The Green Book, And
The 2002 Architectural Review Manual
The CC&R's that govern subdivision No. 4 were recorded in 1964 and establish â€