New Unpublished Opinion - ORANGECREST COUNTRY COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION v. BURNS

ORANGECREST COUNTRY COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION v. BURNS,  California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, Division Two, (June 9, 2022) 

Defendant Sandra Burns sought approval to build a wall across her front yard, and when her homeowners association said no, she built it anyway. After multiple attempts to get her to stop construction (and later to mediate the issue) failed, the association sued Burns, seeking a permanent injunction requiring her to remove the wall. Following a two-day bench trial, the judge found Burns had willfully violated her community's declaration of covenants, conditions, restrictions and reservations (CC&R's) and issued the injunction ordering Burns to remove the wall and to submit an application to restore the landscaping that had been removed to construct the wall. Burns filed an appeal. On appeal, Burns asserts two grounds for reversal. She argues the trial judge erred by failing to find that: (1) the affirmative defense of equitable estoppel applied to justify her construction of the wall, and (2) the association acted unfairly and discriminatorily because they have allowed other homeowners to build walls in their front yards.  The appellate court found that equitable estoppel did not apply as the association did not mislead her.  Rather, the association was clear that she could not build the wall and further the association made it abundantly clear that it had flatly denied the wall when  they contacted Burns through multiple media to ask her to stop construction and reiterate that she did not have approval for the wall. With respect to the discriminatory conduct, the court found that the association demonstrated they followed their own standards and procedures, but Burns failed to provide evidence that the association had allowed another wall like hers to stand. The committee reviewed Burns’ application under the rules and criteria contained in the CC&R's and Architectural Guidelines and denied her wall proposal based on the setback rule in section 4.11 of the Architectural Guidelines.  The appellate court thus affirmed the trial court’s judgment on both grounds.