Kleinhams v. Kunsman
Eleven people who own lots in a residential subdivision outside Portola sought to prevent defendants Harold and Norma Kunsman from completing a 5,000 square-foot garage on their lot in the subdivision. The trial court found the proposed structure would violate setback and size restrictions found in a declaration of restrictions recorded when the subdivision was created in 1958, but the court refused to enforce those restrictions because it found plaintiffs had waived their right to enforce the restrictions and were guilty of laches. Both findings rested largely (although not entirely) on the failure of plaintiffs and their predecessors to establish and operate an architectural control committee provided for in the declaration of restrictions. The trial court felt that by failing to establish and operate such a committee, the right to enforce the restrictions had been lost absent prospective notice of an intent to enforce the restrictions.
Court conclude the trial courts findings of waiver and laches are not supported by substantial evidence. As court explain, the architectural control committee that was provided for in the declaration of restrictions had no role in implementing or enforcing the setback and size restrictions the Kunsmans building violated. Thus, the failure to establish that committee by itself could not result in a loss of the right to enforce those restrictions. We also conclude there is no other basis in the record to support the trial courts findings of waiver and laches. Accordingly, Court reverse the judgment.
Comments on Kleinhams v. Kunsman