Legal Question in Real Estate Law in California
We received a letter from a Lawyer representing neighbors who want us to top trees on our property that they feel are blocking their view. the CC&R's indicates that; "no owner shall allow shrubs or trees to grow sufficiently tall to impair the general view of adjoining property owners."
Our lots do not adjoin. A third party owns the parcel that separates our property from that of the neighbors with the complaint. If we use the first three letters of the alphabet (A,B,C) to represent proximity of lots, A=our property, B=empty lot owned by third party, and C = neighbors companying about the view.
We feel the CC&R's do not apply since we do not have adjoining lots. Are we correct?
2 Answers from Attorneys
It sounds like you are correct to me.
Maybe, but maybe not. In at least one California case decided at the Court of Appeal, the Court held that "adjoin" does not necessarily require physical contact of borders, but can also mean simply "nearby" if that was the intent of the party or parties that drafted the language. See Welch v. Kai (1970) published at 4 Cal.App.3d page 374. In this case, the Court held that whether "adjoining" requires common borders or can simply mean "nearby" depends upon what the parties who wrote the language had in mind. The Court cited a dictionary definition for "adjoin" which included "nearby" as an alternate or additional meaning. The neighbors' lawyer is likely to come across Welch v. Kai if there is litigation, if he/she hasn't already, so I'd recommend looking up the case and figuring out how a trial court would (or might) interpret the CC&Rs;in light of the holding therein.
Related Questions & Answers
Looking for something else?
10,200 active attorneys ready to answer your legal questions today.
Featured Attorneys
Earn additional revenue and grow your business.
