Portola Hills Community Assn. v. James
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
CROSBY, Acting P. J.
Is a private restriction prohibiting a homeowner from installing a satellite dish in his yard unreasonable? In this case it is. Also, because the appeal from the judgment is frivolous, sanctions shall be assessed.
I
The parties stipulated to the following facts: Defendant John James is the owner of a lot in the planned community of Portola Hills. The Portola Hills Community Association enforces a comprehensive set of covenants, conditions and restrictions (CC&Rs). The CC&Rs “completely ban[] the use of satellite dishes in Portola Hills. [¶] 5. Separate architectural…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- In Re Marriage of FlahertyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1982
- In Re Marriage of ArceneauxCalifornia Supreme Court · 1990
- Weaver v. JordanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1966
- Homestead Supplies, Inc. v. Executive Life InsuranceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1978
- Ritchey v. Villa Nueva Condominium Assn.California Court of Appeal · 1978
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Nahrstedt v. Lakeside Village Condominium Assn.California Supreme Court · 1994
- Liebler v. Point Loma Tennis ClubCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1995
- Nahrstedt v. Lakeside Village Condominium Assn.California Supreme Court · 1994
- Nahrstedt v. Lakeside Village Condominium Assn.California Supreme Court · 1994
- S and V LLC v. Lowe's Home Centers, LLCDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2019
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.