Stones v. Hope Ranch Park Homes Assn. CA2/6

Filed 9/18/13 Stones v. Hope Ranch Park Homes Assn. CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

CHARLES STONES, 2d Civil No. B243427 (Super. Ct. No. 1341215) Plaintiff and Appellant, (Santa Barbara County)

v.

HOPE RANCH PARK HOMES ASSOCIATION,

Defendant and Respondent.

Plaintiff appeals an order denying his motion to enforce a judgment based on a settlement agreement. (Code Civ. Proc., § 664.6.) We reverse. FACTS Charles Stones has owned a home in Hope Ranch for over 30 years. The home has ocean views. Hope Ranch is governed by the Hope Ranch Park Homes Association (Association). The parcels in Hope Ranch are subject to covenants, conditions and restrictions (CC&Rs). The CC&Rs contain provisions giving the Association the power to regulate the height of trees and other plants to protect views from adjacent lots and to protect the privacy of the owner of the lots containing the trees or plants. William and Carol Foley were Stones's neighbors. They planted vegetation that Stones believed obstructed his ocean view. In a preemptive strike, the Foleys

brought an action against Stones to bar him from enforcing the view rights granted to him by the CC&Rs. The action resulted in a judgment in favor of Stones, holding that he had enforceable view corridors over the Foleys' parcel. (Foley v. Stones (March 13, 2000) 2d Civil No. B128600 [nonpub. opn.].) In 2002, the Association met with the parties to develop a plan to preserve Stones' views. The plan is designated by the parties as the "2002 Decision." It prohibits the Foleys from planting any new vegetation that would interfere with Stones's views and requires the Foleys to remove offending volunteer vegetation on an ongoing basis. Photographs taken in 2002 established a baseline for trimming. In 2009, Stones again became dissatisfied with the Foleys' vegetation. Stones filed the instant complaint for declaratory relief, enforcement of equitable servitude, breach of fiduciary duties and negligence. He named the Association and its general manager as defendants. The Foleys were not made parties. While the action was pending, the Foleys conveyed their property to Mark and Carol Brown. In November 2010, the Association and Stones entered into a settlement agreement. The agreement was stated orally on the court record. The parties, however, could not agree on the wording of a written formal order. Eventually, the trial court ruled that the judgment will be in the language as stated orally on the court record. The agreement provides in part: "The [Association] will send a letter to the Browns, the new owners of the Neighboring Property (hereinafter, 'New Owners'), advising them of the violations of the original 2002 Decision of the [Association] and advising them of the trimming that must be done. The deadline for the completion of the trimming by the New Owners will be February 2011. After the New Owners remediate the issues with the two Protected Views and the Parties agree that the work has been completed, new photographs will be taken of the Protected Views from the same vantage point and location as the 2002 Photographs ('2011 Photographs[']), and the 2011 Photographs will form the new baselines. The parties must agree that the 2011 Photographs are representative photographs. [¶] . . . [¶] Once the trimming is completed