gno.law

Bernardo Villas Management Corp. v. Black

California Court of Appeal · D004256 · 1987-03-12 · Published · 190 Cal. App. 3d 153 · 235 Cal. Rptr. 509 · 1987 Cal. App. LEXIS 1483

BERNARDO VILLAS MANAGEMENT CORPORATION NUMBER TWO, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. MARY BLACK Et Al., Defendants and Respondents

Area
civil
Panel
Howard B. Wiener (author)

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T07:42Z · confidence high

The trial court found that a condominium covenant prohibiting the parking of trucks in carports was unreasonable as applied to a clean, noncommercial pickup truck and denied the management company's request for an injunction and fines. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment, agreeing that the restriction was unreasonable given modern cultural perceptions of pickup trucks as standard passenger vehicles.

Ruling reviewedStandardThe courtThe model
Trial court's determination that the condominium covenant restricting truck parking was unreasonable as applied to the defendants' pickup truck.
“Here, the trial court properly found the restriction unreasonable as applied to clean noncommercial pickup trucks.”
unclearcorrectagree with court
agree with court

Authorities

  • relied: Ritchey v. Villa Nueva Condominium Ass'n (1978) 81 Cal.App.3d 688 — Cited by plaintiff to support enforcement of restrictions; court distinguished it as not involving similar facts.
  • relied: Flowers v. John Burnham & Co. (1971) 21 Cal.App.3d 700 — Cited by plaintiff to support enforcement of restrictions; court distinguished it as not involving similar facts.
  • relied: Hidden Harbour Estates, Inc. v. Norman (1975) 309 So.2d 180 — Cited by plaintiff to support enforcement of restrictions; court distinguished it as not involving similar facts.
  • relied: Sterling Village Condominium, Inc. v. Breitenbach (1971) 251 So.2d 685 — Cited by plaintiff to support enforcement of restrictions; court distinguished it as not involving similar facts.

The appellate opinion: sound — sound

How this analysis was made · dispute it

A model's reading — claude-fable-5-1, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T04:32Z · confidence low

The trial court entered judgment for condominium residents Black and Trout, refusing to enforce a recorded restriction barring trucks from carports and denying the association's request for an injunction and $2,060 in fines, finding the restriction unreasonable as applied to a clean, noncommercial pickup used as personal transportation. The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that under Civil Code sections 1353 and 1354 a court may decline to enforce an unreasonable restriction and that the trial court's as-applied finding was sensible, with the cases cited by the association being factually distinguishable.

Ruling reviewedStandardThe courtThe model
Finding that the recorded covenant prohibiting trucks in carports was unreasonable as applied to a clean, noncommercial pickup truck, and resulting refusal to enjoin the owners or award the association its fines
“Here, the trial court properly found the restriction unreasonable as applied to clean noncommercial pickup trucks.”
unclearcorrectunsure
The opinion never states a standard of review; it treats the trial court's 'impression' that the pickup was the equivalent of a station wagon as a factual determination to which it defers, while also announcing as a legal matter that Civil Code section 1354 permits a court to refuse enforcement of an unreasonable restriction. The statutory text ('unless unreasonable') supports the court's power to deny enforcement, and the association's cited authorities (Ritchey, Flowers, and two Florida cases) were correctly described as not involving similar facts. However, the court gives no analytical framework for reasonableness, places no weight on the presumption of validity attaching to a recorded declaration that purchasers take with notice, and does not address the leading California authority on reasonableness of condominium restrictions, Laguna Royale Owners Assn. v. Darger, or the Supreme Court's covenant-approval case Hannula v. Hacienda Homes. The as-applied, owner-by-owner approach also sits uneasily with the uniform-enforcement rationale of common interest developments. Because the result was defensible under the law as it stood in 1987 but the reasoning is largely impressionistic and omits the governing framework, I cannot say the court committed a specific identifiable error of law, nor can I endorse the reasoning as adequate.

Authorities

  • relied: Ritchey v. Villa Nueva Condominium Assn. (1978) 81 Cal.App.3d 688 — Upheld an age restriction in condominium CC&Rs as reasonable and enforceable against a purchaser with notice; the court distinguished it as not involving similar facts and not holding courts lack power to refuse enforcement of an unreasonable restriction.
  • relied: Flowers v. John Burnham & Co. (1971) 21 Cal.App.3d 700 — Upheld an adults-only rental restriction against a discrimination challenge; cited by the association and distinguished by the court as factually dissimilar.
  • missed: Laguna Royale Owners Assn. v. Darger (1981) 119 Cal.App.3d 670 — Set out the California test for enforceability of condominium use restrictions: the restriction must be reasonable in light of the legitimate purposes of the association and the burdens imposed on owners, with the association's exercise of its power judged for reasonableness, good faith, and consistency with the governing documents.
  • missed: Hannula v. Hacienda Homes (1949) 34 Cal.2d 442 — Restrictive covenants requiring approval of a controlling body are enforceable where the body acts reasonably and in good faith; supplies the Supreme Court's framework for reviewing enforcement of recorded land-use restrictions against individual owners.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The court reached a defensible result under Civil Code section 1354's 'unless unreasonable' language and correctly observed that the association's cited cases were factually inapposite, but it offered no legal framework for assessing reasonableness and ignored Laguna Royale and Hannula, the existing California authorities on enforcement of common-interest-development restrictions. The opinion's reasoning rests mainly on cultural observations about pickup trucks rather than on the deference ordinarily owed to a recorded declaration that purchasers accept with notice, leaving a thin analytical foundation.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion — Wiener

Opinion

WIENER, J.

Plaintiff Bernardo Villas Management Corporation Number Two (Bernardo Villas Management) appeals from the judgment in favor of defendants Mary Black and Kenneth Trout. We affirm.

Mary Black and Kenneth Trout lived in a condominium managed by Bernardo Villas Management. The condominium was subject to a declaration of covenants and restrictions which included: “No truck, camper, trailer, boat of any kind or other form of recreational vehicle shall be parked on the [Bernardo] Villas 6 project, except temporarily and solely for the purposes of loading and unloading, without the prior approval of the Architectural Committee____The carports shall be used for parking of passenger automobiles or non-powered vehicles such as bicycles, only----”

In February 1985 Trout bought a new pickup which he parked in the carport for Black’s condominium. Bernardo Villas Management sued to enjoin him and Black from parking the pickup in the carport and to recover $2,060 in fines it had imposed for violating the condominium restriction.

A condominium project may impose covenants and restrictions on the use or enjoyment of any portion of the common interest area. (Civ. Code, § 1353.) These covenants and restrictions become equitable servitudes, unless unreasonable. (Civ. Code, § 1354.) Here, the trial court properly found the restriction unreasonable as applied to clean noncommercial pickup trucks. The court correctly concluded the parking of such vehicles in condominium carports was not aesthetically unpleasant to reasonable *155 persons and did not interfere with other owners’ use and enjoyment of their property. None of the cases relied on by Bernardo Villas Management (see Ritchey v. Villa Nueva Condominium Ass'n (1978) 81 Cal.App.3d 688 [146 Cal.Rptr. 695, 100 A.L.R.3d 231], Flowers v. John Burnham & Co. (1971) 21 Cal.App.3d 700 [98 Cal.Rptr. 644], Hidden Harbour Estates, Inc. v. Norman (Fla.App. 1975) 309 So.2d 180 [72 A.L.R.3d 305], Sterling Village Condominium, Inc. v. Breitenbach (Fla.App. 1971) 251 So.2d 685) involve similar facts or suggest that a court is without power to refuse to enforce an unreasonable restriction.

Here, the subject of controversy was a new, clean pickup truck which the defendants used solely for personal transportation primarily to and from work. The court’s impression was that the pickup with its camper shell was the equivalent of a station wagon. Beauty—even with cars—is in the eye of the beholder. In this world where those persons concerned with upwardly mobile status frequently drive off-road vehicles including well-appointed jeeps or pickup trucks, we think the trial court’s ruling is eminently sensible. The pickup truck, often both comfortable and economical, has become for many the equivalent of the convertible in earlier years. As times change, cultural perceptions—including society’s acceptance of certain types of vehicles—also change. The pickup truck no longer has a pejorative connotation. One person’s Bronco II is another’s Rolls-Royce.

The judgment is affirmed.

Kremer, P. J., and Lewis, J., concurred.

Cites, in this corpus

Cited by