Smith v. North

California Court of Appeal Aug 15, 1966 No. Civ. 7926Published

Before: Coughlin

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the proposed split-level dwelling did not violate the restrictive covenant limiting the structure to one floor above the ground floor, as the garage was not part of the dwelling area and the split-level design constituted a single floor.

Issues

Whether a split-level dwelling design violates a restrictive covenant limiting a structure to one floor above the ground floor.
Whether a garage space constitutes a 'floor' of a dwelling for the purposes of a restrictive covenant.
Whether the trial court's interpretation of the restrictive covenant was consistent with the purpose of the restriction and the rule of strict construction.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Restrictive covenants are construed strictly against the person seeking to enforce them”

“The construction adopted by the trial court was correct.”

“The trial court concluded, in substance, the restriction proscribing “more than one floor above the ground floor ’ ’ is directed to the dwelling area of the structure”

COUGHLIN, Acting P. J.

Plaintiffs appeal from a judgment denying an injunction to restrain defendants from building a proposed dwelling which plaintiffs allege would violate tract building restrictions.

Plaintiffs and defendants are the owners, respectively, of Lots 26 and 9 in “Yacht Club Terrace,” a Point Loma subdivision. Lot 26 is deeper than Lot 9; partly adjoins the latter; and lies in a general northwesterly direction therefrom. Both of these and other lots in Yacht Club Terrace are hillside residential sites having a view of a yacht harbor in San Diego Bay. Ownership of the lots in this subdivision is subject to building restrictions common to the tract which are set forth in a declaration of record. Pertinent to the issues at hand is the following restriction:

1 ‘ That no dwelling shall be erected or maintained on any of said lots which shall have a minimum floor surface, exclusive of any portion used for a garage ... of less than 1800 square feet for dwellings erected on Lots 9 to 16 inclusive, and on Lots 26 to 28 inclusive. . . .

[247]

“No dwelling shall have a ground-floor area of less than 1200 square feet or contain more than one floor above the ground floor.

(

“For the purpose of interpreting this provision, ‘ground floor’ shall mean the floor of a dwelling nearest to the level of the street in front of the lot on which said dwelling is erected. ’ ’

The declaration concludes with the recital:

“The above and foregoing restrictions are hereby imposed on said real property to the end that the buildings erected thereon may be in architectural harmony each with the other, thereby assuring a desirable type of community development. The general architectural style which will be encouraged by the Owner shall be that which is somewhat rambling in character, with the general plan in harmony with gardens and patios and giving special import to the view angle. ...”

Defendants propose to build a dwelling on Lot 9 which plaintiffs allege would violate the restriction that “no dwelling shall . . . contain more than one floor above the ground floor.” The declaration of building restrictions provided for the submission to and approval by the ownersubdivider, or a committee appointed by him, of any proposed building prior to construction. Defendants submitted their plans to an architect known as “the successor to the owners’ committee” who, after some changes, approved them. As proposed, the contemplated structure consisted of a garage, the floor of which at the front was 6 inches above street level and at the rear was 9 feet below the finished grade of the property

Smith v. North

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief