Warning

Info

Table of Contents
Chris22, HLS '22 |

0 0

Back to briefs

Nahrstedt v. Lakeside Village Condominium Association

(1994)

Supreme Court of California - 878 P.2d 1275, 8 Cal. 4th 361

tl;dr:

Restrictive covenants in condominium agreements will be upheld unless they violate public policy.

Video Summary

ICRAIssue, Conclusion, Rule, Analysis for Nahrstedt v. Lakeside Village Condominium Association

LSD+ exclusive

This content is exclusively for LSD+ users.

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to the Nahrstedt v. Lakeside Village Condominium Association case brief summary.

Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

Facts & HoldingNahrstedt v. Lakeside Village Condominium Association case brief facts & holding

Facts:The plaintiff purchased a condo in Lakeside Village Condominiums. She...

Holding:The covenant was upheld, because it was a bargained-for contract...

LSD+ exclusive

This content is exclusively for LSD+ users.

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to the Nahrstedt v. Lakeside Village Condominium Association case brief summary.

Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

DeepDiveHighlight a legal term to see the definition

Font size -+
Nahrstedt v. Lakeside Village Condominium Association | Case Brief DeepDive
Majority opinion, author: KENNARD, J.
Level 1
Click below 👇 to DeepDive

The California Supreme Court held that pet restrictions in a common interest development must be uniformly enforced, unless the plaintiff can prove that the burdens outweigh the benefits. The court overturned the Court of Appeal's previous ruling that the restriction could only be enforced if it could be proven that the cats would interfere with other homeowners' right to peaceful and quiet enjoyment of their property. The court explained the concept of shared real property ownership and the importance of the declaration created by a developer's attorney for establishing a common interest development. Common interest ownership requires membership in an owners association, which has the power to enforce use restrictions and create new rules. The governing board must act in good faith and comply with governing documents and public policy. Homeowners can enforce restrictive CC&R's against other owners, including future purchasers, but only if the restrictions meet the requirements of equitable servitudes or covenants running with the land. The restrictions must relate to use, repair, maintenance, or improvement of the property, or to payment of taxes or assessments, and the instrument containing the restrictions must be recorded. Common interest development use restrictions in California are generally enforceable unless they are deemed unreasonable.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.

LSD+ exclusive

This content is exclusively for LSD+ users.

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to the Nahrstedt v. Lakeside Village Condominium Association case brief summary.

Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

Dissenting opinion, author: ARABIAN, J., Dissenting.
Level 1
Click below 👇 to DeepDive

The dissenting judge in a case disagrees with the majority's narrow interpretation of the law regarding pet ownership restrictions in a condominium complex. The plaintiff challenges the pet ownership restriction in Lakeside Village, arguing that it deprives her and others of the substantial pleasures of pet ownership without providing any benefit to other unit owners, as long as the pets do not create a nuisance. The majority opinion acknowledges that their interpretation of Civil Code section 1354 creates a vague test for determining when the harmful effects of a land-use restriction are disproportionate to benefit. However, they find the plaintiff's allegations deficient because they do not specifically state facts to support a finding that the burden of the restriction on the affected property is so disproportionate to its benefit that the restriction is unreasonable and should not be enforced. The complaint states a cause of action for declaratory relief, and the burden at issue is whether the restriction's burdens on the affected land are so disproportionate to the restriction's beneficial effects that the restriction should not be enforced.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.

LSD+ exclusive

This content is exclusively for LSD+ users.

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to the Nahrstedt v. Lakeside Village Condominium Association case brief summary.

Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

🤯 High points 🤯Key points contributed by students on LSD

LSD+ exclusive

This content is exclusively for LSD+ users.

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to the Nahrstedt v. Lakeside Village Condominium Association case brief summary.

Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

LSD+ Case Briefs

Features

  • DeepDive for detailed case analysis
  • Over 50,000 existing case briefs
  • Instant briefs for another 6,000,000 cases
  • Highlight dictionary for legal term definitions
  • Social learning with chat and high points

Over 50,000 Cases Briefed

LSD+ gives you access to over 50,000 case briefs, more than anyone else. Be the first to email us the website of a case brief product that offers you more case briefs and we'll give you a free year of LSD+.

14-Day Free Trial

Unlimited access. Read as much content as you want during your trial with no device limitations. Cancel any time during your trial and keep access for the full 14 days.

Integrated Legal Dictionary

Lawyers and judges love to use big words. And Latin, for some reason.

Highlight a legal term in LSD Briefs and get an instant, plain English definition. Try highlighting contract or specific performance. No need to search or read through a list of definitions, simply highlight the words you don’t know and our LSDefine integration will instantly give you a definition to any of over 30,000 legal terms.

DeepDive

DeepDive allows you to explore legal cases like never before. DeepDive offers multiple levels of case summaries, which empowers you to quickly and easily find the information you need to stay on top of readings. Easily navigate through summary levels and click on any text to get more detail, all the way down to the original legal case text.

Brief anything. Instantly.

Our proprietary state-of-the-art system can instantly brief over 6,000,000 US cases. That means we can probably brief that case that your professor assigned last night when she sent you a poorly scanned pdf and told you to read every third paragraph. Or maybe she uploaded it to Canvas and didn’t really tell you to read it, but you know you probably should. Tenure does wild things to good people.

Social Learning with Chat and High Points

Study groups are a great way to learn and explore a case. LSD has chat rooms for each case to let you ask questions across the community and hear what other students struggled with and how they put it all together. Learn the key points of every case from other LSD+ users and share your knowledge with LSD High Points.

Real-Time Brief Feedback

Don’t settle for mistakes in briefs that have been there for 10 years and never fixed. Find an issue or something missing from a brief? Down vote and we will make improvements. All of our case brief editors graduated from from T14 law schools.

Nahrstedt v. Lakeside Village Condominium Association

Chat for Nahrstedt v. Lakeside Village Condominium Association
brief-604
👍 Chat vibe: 0 👎
Help us make LSD better!
Tell us what's important to you
LSD+ is ad-free, with DMs, discounts, case briefs & more.