View Ridge Estates Homeowners Ass'n v. Guetter

1

VIEW RIDGE ESTATES HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, a Washington nonprofit corporation, Appellant, v. WALTER GUETTER and MARIANN GUETTER, a married couple, Respondents, RONALD A. HAERTL and LESLIE KOLISCH, Intervenors.

No. 85897-1-I

Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 1

April 8, 2024

OPINION

DWYER J.

This matter involves Walter and Mariann Guetter's challenge to View Ridge Estates Homeowners Association's adoption of a view obstruction covenant implicating certain trees on the Guetters' property. Their challenge relies on our Supreme Court's decision in Wilkinson v. Chiwawa Cmtys Ass'n, 180 Wn.2d 241, 327 P.3d 614 (2014), thereby requiring that we determine whether View Ridge Estates' governing covenants granted its members the authority to adopt new covenants or only to change its existing covenants whether the view obstruction covenant adopted herein constituted an entirely new covenant or simply a change to View Ridge Estates' existing covenants, and whether View Ridge Estates obtained the requisite support from its members to adopt such a covenant. Concluding that View Ridge Estates' governing covenants authorized its members to change its existing covenants, that the adopted view obstruction covenant-by increasing certain view obstruction restrictions already in place-constituted a change to its existing covenants, and that View Ridge Estates' members obtained the requisite support of its members to adopt such a change, we affirm the trial court's summary judgment orders.^[1]

The Guetters also appeal from the trial court order granting awards of attorney fees and costs to the prevailing parties. They assert that the trial court did not adequately address their objections to the prevailing parties' requests for such awards. We agree.

Therefore, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand the matter to the trial court for it to readdress its prior award of attorney fees and costs.

I

In 1982, View Ridge Estates Homeowners Association recorded a declaration in Clark County announcing certain covenants, conditions, and restrictions on its land.^[2] That declaration included the following:

Amendment. The covenants and restrictions of this Declaration shall run with and bind the land . . . . The covenants and restrictions of this Declaration may be amended during the first twenty (20) year period [from the date this declaration is recorded] by an instrument signed by not less than ninety (90) percent of the Lot Owners, and thereafter by an instrument signed by not less than seventy-five (75) percent of the Lot Owners. Any proposed amendment must be consistent with the approved development plan for the P.U.D. and may not contravene the City of Camas P.U.D. Ordinance and must be properly recorded.

(Emphasis added.)

As pertinent here, the declaration also set forth a provision titled "Use Restrictions," which reads as follows:

Section 1. Enjoyment of Property. The owners shall use their respective properties to their enjoyment in such a manner so as not to offend or detract from other Owner's enjoyment of their own respective properties.

. . . .

Section 13. Views. If any outbuilding or fence is not subject to the architectural committees['] approval it shall be designed and constructed in such a fashion so as not to materially obstruct the view of any other lot owner and, in no event shall any fence be any greater than six feet in heighth.

(Emphasis added.)

In 2004, the Guetters bought a plot of land within View Ridge Estates that included within its boundaries a house and several trees.

In 2018, a View Ridge Estates committee initiated and completed a draft document setting forth a restatement of View Ridge Estates' previously recorded declaration. As pertinent here, the draft restated declaration contained a covenant that reads as follows:

No trees or other vegetation, in a view and/or view corridor area, shall be taller than a maximum of fifteen (15) feet or the first story gutter height in the front or back yard of any home, whichever is shorter, where the tree or other vegetation is located, nor shall any trees or other vegetation be taller than a maximum of six (6) feet between any homes if in a view or view corridor. If trees and other vegetation comply with these limits, they are expressly permitted. Taller trees and shrubs are permitted so long as no Member's view is unreasonably obstructed by the taller trees or shrubs.

The draft restated declaration also provided for a landscape committee whose duties included resolving disputes regarding view obstructions. The draft declaration gave every member "the right to notify [the committee] at any point in time if he/she feels that there is a view obstruction occurring by overgrown vegetation whether it is within the Membership Lots and/or the Common Areas." When notified of such a situation, the draft declaration indicated that the committee "shall make its best efforts to help the Membership, and assist the Board, to reasonably protect, preserve and enhance our views and view corridors and to resolve any view obstruction issue by attempting to formulate an agreed plan of action in writing with the affected Members." (Emphasis added.) In so doing, the committee would take "into account all of the affected Members' opinions and perspectives, and the relevant facts and issues surrounding any particular view obstruction issue, including any old and/or new photos of such views if available." In the event that the committee was unable to "resolve the view obstruction issue by agreement between the affected Members," the committee would issue its written decision and provide affected members the opportunity to appeal the matter to View Ridge Estates' board.^[3]

Thereafter, in the summer of 2018, View Ridge Estates sought to obtain member support for the draft restated declaration and the association ultimately gathered signatures from nearly all-but not all-of its 46 members.^[4] The restated declaration was duly recorded in Clark County.

Five months later, certain View Ridge Estates members-including Ronald Haertl and Leslie Kolisch-notified the landscape committee that certain trees located on the Guetters' property were obstructing their view of the Columbia River and of Mt. Hood in violation of the newly adopted view obstruction covenant. The committee contacted the Guetters in an attempt to resolve the members' complaint. The Guetters declined to participate in that process, indicating that they did not intend to allow members of the committee onto their property and refusing to comply with the view obstruction covenant.^[5]

The landscape committee thereafter determined that nine of the Guetters' trees were in violation of the view obstruction covenant and directed the Guetters to top, trim, or remove those trees. The Guetters appealed the committee's determination to View Ridge Estates' board, which denied their appeal. In a letter responding to the board's denial, the Guetters stated, that "the [homeowners' association] can expect us to hold our position and we will NOT conform with your new [restrictive covenants] when it comes to tree removal on our property." The Board sent the Guetters a demand letter. The Guetters did not respond.

View Ridge Estates subsequently filed a complaint in Clark County Superior Court alleging both that the Guetters were in breach of the newly adopted view obstruction covenant and requesting injunctive relief requiring the Guetters to trim, top, remove, or otherwise modify the trees in question. The Guetters filed an answer with affirmative defenses. Haertl and Kolisch later filed a motion to intervene, which the superior court granted.^[6]

A few months later, View Ridge Estates filed a motion for summary judgment, joined by Haertl and Kolisch, which the trial court granted. The Guetters later filed a motion for partial summary judgment, which the trial court denied. The superior court then issued an injunction ordering the Guetters to "trim, top, or[ ]remove trees on their lot in the manner set forth in the decision of [View Ridge Estates'] Landscape Committee."^[7]

Thereafter, View Ridge Estates and Haertl and Kolisch requested an award of attorney fees and costs, which the Guetters opposed on several grounds. The trial court-without responding to the Guetters' objections- granted the award requests.

The Guetters now appeal.^[8]

II

The Guetters assert that the trial court erred by granting View Ridge Estates' motion for summary judgment because View Ridge Estates' adoption of the view obstruction covenant was invalid. This is so, according to the Guetters, because View Ridge Estates' governing covenants only authorized its members to change its covenants, the view obstruction covenant adopted by the association constituted an entirely new covenant, and the association needed unanimous consent to adopt such a covenant, which it did not obtain.

The Guetters are incorrect. Although the Guetters properly identify that View Ridge Estates' governing covenants only authorize its members to change its covenants, the view obstruction covenant adopted herein resulted only in an increase to restrictions already in place. Therefore, rather than creating an entirely new covenant, the adopted covenant constituted only a change to View Ridge Estates' existing covenants, a change which the association gathered sufficient support to validly adopt.

A

The matter before us involves the interpretation of restrictive covenants. The court in Wilkinson described the applicable standard as follows:

Interpretation of a restrictive covenant presents a question of law. Wimberly v. Caravello, 136 Wn.App. 327, 336 149 P.3d 402 (2006). We apply the rules of contract interpretation. Id. While Washington courts once

...