Legal Opinion

Hurst v. Victoria Park Subdivision Addition No. 1 Homeowners' Ass'n

Alaska Supreme Court

Decided November 29, 2002No. S-10249PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

FABE, Chief Justice.

I. INTRODUCTION

The Victoria Park Subdivision Homeowners' Association built a short wood fence at the edge of Lot 48, a lot set aside for recreational purposes. Gregory and Michele Hurst, who live on an adjacent lot, sued, claiming that the fence violated a restrictive covenant proscribing "permanent structures" on Lot 48. The trial court granted summary Judgment to the Association on the grounds that the fence comported with the designated purpose of the restrictive covenant and did not prevent the Hursts from using Lot 48. Because the fence does not violate the…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Hoffman Construction Co. of Alaska v. U.S. Fabrication & Erection, Inc.Alaska Supreme Court · 2001
  2. Lenhoff v. Birch Bay Real Estate, Inc.Court of Appeals of Washington · 1978
  3. Stadnicky v. Southpark Terrace Homeowner's Ass'nAlaska Supreme Court · 1997
  4. Thomas v. DepaoliMissouri Court of Appeals · 1989
  5. Kalenka v. TaylorAlaska Supreme Court · 1995

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. HP Ltd. Partnership v. Kenai River Airpark, LLCAlaska Supreme Court · 2012
  2. Fannon v. PoloAlaska Supreme Court · 2019
  3. State of Alaska, Office of Lieutenant Governor, Division of Elections, and Kevin Meyer, in an official capacity v. Vote Yes for Alaska's Fair ShareAlaska Supreme Court · 2021

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API