![]() ![]() Superior Court: The Superior Court for Pierce County, No. Nature of Action: Action by a homeowners association to enforce a restrictive covenant against exterior antennas. The enforceability of one restrictive covenant in an agreement does not depend upon whether or not other covenants in the agreement are enforced. While a covenant which is habitually and substantially violated without penalty is deemed abandoned, abandonment is not evidenced by only a few violations. Covenants – Enforcement – Abandonment – Proof. Covenants which proscribe the erection of exterior antennas by property owners in a subdivision in order to protect the aesthetic and economic value of the subdivision properties do not unreasonably restrain an owner's use of property. Covenants – Validity – Exterior Antennas. Covenants restricting the use which may be made of real property are construed to protect the collective interests of property owners and must be reasonable and reasonably exercised to be valid. A covenant which restricts the use of one parcel of land in order to enhance the value of another parcel "touches and concerns" both parcels. Covenants – Running With Land – Elements – Touch and Concern. Restrictive covenants which exclude from their provisions actions taken by the developer in developing the properties to which the covenants apply, while providing that the covenants apply to any owner of a dwelling unit, also apply to the developer of the property when acting in an ownership role. Covenants – Construction – Developer – Status as Owner. In order for a covenant to run with the land: (1) it must have been enforceable between the original parties (2) it must "touch and concern" both the land to be benefited and the land to be burdened (3) the original parties must have intended to bind their successors in interest and (4) there must be both vertical privity between the original parties to the covenant and the present disputants and horizontal privity of estate or privity between the original parties. Covenants – Running With Land – Elements – In General. A covenant restricting a use that may be made of real property is enforceable against a transferee of the property if the covenant runs with the land. Covenants – Enforcement – Transferee – Running With Land – Necessity. An appellate court applying the summary judgment review standard of CR 56(c) views the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Judgment – Summary Judgment – Review – Interpretation of Facts. MOUNTAIN PARK HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., Appellant, v. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |