|
|
|
|
|
|
|
February 24, 2002
|
Case No: 02CC12362 - Greenbrook Fountain Valley HOA vs Tezak
|
|
California
Superior Court
County of Orange
Branch: Central Justice Center
|
GREENBROOK FOUNTAIN VALLEY HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION
Represented by: FELDSOTT, LEE, IGER & LEW
CAI Member
v.
WILLIAM MARTIN TEZAK AND ANICE JEAN TEZAK
Represented by: PRO PER
|
Summary
Defendants moved into the community around May 2001 and submitted Architectural plans via the previous owner to remove a 30' section of block wall to install a 28' ft gate of conforming standards, for purposes of gaining access to the side-yard, to then store Recreational Vehicles and other uses. Upon review by the Board members since an Architectural Committee does exist, Members refused to allow lawful improvements and vehicle storage based on personal bias, where no CC&Rs existed, and even 1 member also is an adjacent neighbor who voted to disapprove the acceptable and conforming improvements and use to prevent the RV storage with less than 6% community objection. To date Board members have continued the lawsuit despite majority homeowner objections and now is being continued on principal issues, other than for the benefit of the homeowners as done in the emphasis to protect our CC&Rs with legal fees amounting to tens of thousands for a conforming fence modification that is considered acceptable by the neighborhood and lawful use of private property.
|
|
|
Causes of Action: Preliminary and permanent Injunctions for violation of CC&Rs; Trespass to easement; and damages as to diminution of value to estate for trespass
|
|
Judge: The Honorable David Brickner
|
Lawsuit Text
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
For Injunctions Restraining Violaion of Rcorded Servitudes and/or appurtenant Rules-Against all Defendants
Defendants and each of them have violated the Declaration in that they have begun building at Subject property, inter alia, masonary pilasters, gate and RV storage facility of unacceptable appearance and location, as follows: remove existing landscaping and 30 foot block wall and replace it with two pilasters and a 29' rolling gate made of green and white slats, to be used as an RV storage facility.
Plaintiff did not consent to the breach of the terms and conditions.
Plaintiff by reason of the breach has been irreparably damaged and injured and will continue to be as long as Defendants are allowed to breach the CC&Rs.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
For Injunction Restraining Trespass-Against all Defendants
The Declaration encumbers that certain real property, as described in Exhibit "B". Plaintiff has certain easements over the exteriors of the DEVELOPMENT. The CC&Rs precludes violations of DECLARATION therefore alleged and the maintaining of the violating condition at SUBJECT PROPERTY. By Defendant continuing the trespass by reason of the violations, Plaintiff will be irreparably damaged and injured by said violating condition hereinabove alleged.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
For Damages for Trespass-Against all Defendants
As a proximate result of Defendants refusal and/or failure to correct the above-noted violating conditions as herein alleged, Plainitff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that it has been damaged in a sum equal to the diminution in the value to Plaintiff's estate in the DEVELOPMENT caused by said violation, in an amount according to proof.
Prays judgment as follows:
(1) Preliminary and permanent injunctions enjoining Defendants,...
(2) Damages in a sum according to proof;
(3) Costs of suit incurred herein;
(4) Reasonable Attorney fees, pursuant to CC Sec. 1354 & 1717
(5) Other relief as deemed just and proper.
|
|
| |
|
View Comments (9) | Post a comment |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
