Legal Opinion

Saunders v. Meyers

Court of Appeals of Washington

Decided May 28, 2013No. 68249-1-IPublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtAppelwick, J.

¶1 The Somerset Covenants Review Committee decided the Meyerses’ mature maple tree violated a restrictive covenant protecting views and required that the tree be trimmed or removed. The trial court granted summary judgment enforcing that decision. However, the CRC’s decision was based upon an incorrect interpretation of the covenant and was not enforceable. We void the decision of the CRC, reverse the order of the trial court, and remand for award of costs to the Meyerses and dismissal of the action.

FACTS

¶2 This appeal arises from a single mature maple tree on Vernon and Virginia Meyerses’…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. Berg v. HudesmanWashington Supreme Court · 1990
  2. Hollis v. Garwall, Inc.Washington Supreme Court · 1999
  3. Cox v. HeleniusWashington Supreme Court · 1985
  4. Riss v. AngelWashington Supreme Court · 1997
  5. Riss v. AngelWashington Supreme Court · 1997

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

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Miller v. KennyCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2014
  2. Emerald Hills Homes Owners' Association, App v. Kurt Nimmergut, Et Ux, RespCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2017
  3. Milo Burroughs v. Western Airpark AssociationCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2017
  4. Safeco Insurance Company, / X-res. v. Ryan E. Miller, / X-app.Court of Appeals of Washington · 2014
  5. Saunders v. MeyersCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2013

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

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

Powered by the Exa API