Court rulings on view covenant?

Started by CatherineA • 7 replies • 2093 views

💬 Join us to post & get advice from 50,000 HOA & Condo leaders.

⚡ Takes 30 seconds

Already a member? Log in

CatherineA (Washington)
Posts: 3

Posted:

Does anyone know of recent (last couple of years) court decisions on views? Our Declaration of Protective convenants states:

View: Neither the Declarant, the Homeowners Association or the Architectural Control Committee as hereinafter provided for shall be liable if a dwelling should block a portion or all of another's view(s).

Doesn't mention trees and we have a group of neighbors who have decided that trees in the common areas and on others properties need to be cut or topped because they are impeding their view. Our Board appears to be giving them a lot of encouragement when it seems the homeowner with the trees should be the only one to decide if they want their trees cut. Just wondering how other HOAs handle this.

TimB4 (Tennessee)
Posts: 21,059

Posted:

Here is a link that might be helpful:

Washington State Supreme and Appellate Court Decisions

You may need to try variations of search terms.

RayC4 (Virginia)
Posts: 173

Posted:

I think you are correct that the Covenants paragraph does not apply.

As to the common area, are there other Covenants terms that might be applicable (i.e. landscaping; neat appearance; etc) that would give the HOA/ACC something to 'hang their hat' on in order to act?

Re the private lots, unless the trees are actually intruding onto neighboring lots, I don't think there's any viable remedy there. That could only be achieved by sweet-talking those homeowners, and finding a way to make it worth their while to keep the trees trimmed to 'match' the ones in the common area.

TimB4 (Tennessee)
Posts: 21,059

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By RayC4 on 06/17/2014 6:39 PM

I think you are correct that the Covenants paragraph does not apply.

Actually, I think that citation very much applies.

The reason why it applies is, in my opinion, the paragraph cited clearly indicates that the Association will not be liable if they approve something that blocks another lot owners view. This indicates that, if the HOA is not liable, it is not an HOA issue but an issue between the two lot owners.

If I were the owner with the trees, I would simply point to that paragraph and tell the Association to quit overstepping their authority.

TimB4 (Tennessee)
Posts: 21,059

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By CatherineA on 06/17/2014 4:38 PM

Doesn't mention trees and we have a group of neighbors who have decided that trees in the common areas

Well, the Board typically has full authority over the common areas. However, if they are going to top trees so an owners view is not obscured, then they should also be topping trees if it blocks satellite reception.

I bring this up because I believe that most Associations have some rule or guideline that specifies that they will not top trees for the sole purpose of allowing satellite reception.

TimB4 (Tennessee)
Posts: 21,059

Posted:

Here is some more info:

The Trouble With Trees -- The Law May Be On Your Side, But Mediation Could Bring A Happier Solution a 1999 article:

"As far as views are concerned, occasionally neighborhoods have restrictive covenants protecting them. Rarer are local ordinances doing the same. Thus, Merullo says, the trees usually rule"

Stately trees can be friends or foes a 2004 article:

Q: Right now I have a wonderful view. However, in a few years the fast-growing trees a neighbor planted are going to block it. What are my rights to retain my view?

A: Merullo says common law provides no general right to view preservation. However, a few municipalities do have view statutes or ordinances. They're rare (and Seattle isn't one of them), but it's always worth checking to see if your jurisdiction has such a statute. (Your local public library should have a copy of your local laws; additionally, many towns have put theirs online.)

Some neighborhoods have covenants that address views. Usually these neighborhoods are planned communities, and the rules are clearly spelled out. Finally, Merullo says there's one last avenue that can be explored: the concept of a "spite tree." State law allows a court injunction to be granted if it can be shown that a property owner maliciously erected a "structure" to injure or annoy the adjoining landowner. It also must be proven that this structure serves no useful or reasonable purpose. Going forward with such a court suit could prove expensive.

LarryB13 (Arizona)
Posts: 4,099

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By CatherineA on 06/17/2014 4:38 PM
Does anyone know of recent (last couple of years) court decisions on views? Our Declaration of Protective convenants states:

View: Neither the Declarant, the Homeowners Association or the Architectural Control Committee as hereinafter provided for shall be liable if a dwelling should block a portion or all of another's view(s).

Doesn't mention trees and we have a group of neighbors who have decided that trees in the common areas and on others properties need to be cut or topped because they are impeding their view. Our Board appears to be giving them a lot of encouragement when it seems the homeowner with the trees should be the only one to decide if they want their trees cut. Just wondering how other HOAs handle this.

In the absence of view easements or covenants, the complaining neighbors have little to stand on regarding trees on other lots. The board can decide to trim or even cut down trees on common areas. It likely cannot require a homeowner to cut down or trim trees on his own lot.

The section quoted gives the association no power to regulate the views; it only protects the named parties from liability if one house blocks the view of another.

In Phoenix, where I live, it seems there is about one lawsuit a year about views. The courts have consistently held that no one has a right to a view over someone else's property.

RayC4 (Virginia)
Posts: 173

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By TimB4 on 06/17/2014 6:52 PM

Posted By RayC4 on 06/17/2014 6:39 PM

If I were the owner with the trees, I would simply point to that paragraph and tell the Association to quit overstepping their authority.

I think we agree but for different reasons. The citation specifies 'dwelling" and says nothing about trees, which is why I don't think it applies. It shows the HOA gave the 'view' issue some thought, and made a conscious decision to only include the house structure.

If I were the owner with the trees, I would simply point to that paragraph and tell the Association it has nothing to do with 'trees' and to quit overstepping their authority.

🎯 You've read this entire discussion

Join the conversation with 50,000 HOA & Condo Leaders:

✓ Ask follow-up questions
✓ Share your experience
✓ Get expert advice
✓ Access 350,000 discussions

Create Free Account →

⚡ Takes 30 seconds

Already a member? Log in here