Opinion ID: 1188976
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The majority's burden/benefit analysis.

Text: From the statement of the facts through the conclusion, the majority's analysis gives scant acknowledgment to any of the foregoing considerations but simply takes refuge behind the presumption of validity now accorded all CC&R's irrespective of subject matter. They never objectively scrutinize defendants' blandishments of protecting health and happiness or realistically assess the substantial impact on affected unit owners and their use of their property. As this court has often recognized, deference is not abdication. ( People v. McDonald (1984) 37 Cal.3d 351, 377 [208 Cal. Rptr. 236, 690 P.2d 709, 46 A.L.R.4th 1011].) Regardless of how limited an inquiry is permitted under applicable law, it must nevertheless be made. Here, such inquiry should start with an evaluation of the interest that will suffer upon enforcement of the pet restriction. In determining the burden on the use of land, due recognition must be given to the fact that this particular use transcends the impersonal and mundane matters typically regulated by condominium CC&R's, such as whether someone can place a doormat in the hallway or hang a towel on the patio rail or have food in the pool area, and reaches the very quality of life of hundreds of owners and residents. Nonetheless, the majority accept uncritically the proffered justification of preserving health and happiness and essentially consider only one criterion to determine enforceability: was the restriction recorded in the original declaration? [15] If so, it is presumptively valid, unless in violation of public policy. Given the application of the law to the facts alleged and by an inversion of relative interests, it is difficult to hypothesize any CC&R's that would not pass muster. [16] Such sanctity has not been afforded any writing save the commandments delivered to Moses on Mount Sinai, and they were set in stone, not upon worthless paper. Moreover, unlike most conduct controlled by CC&R's, the activity at issue here is strictly confined to the owner's interior space; it does not in any manner invade other units or the common areas. Owning a home of one's own has always epitomized the American dream. More than simply embodying the notion of having one's castle, it represents the sense of freedom and self-determination emblematic of our national character. Granted, those who live in multi-unit developments cannot exercise this freedom to the same extent possible on a large estate. But owning pets that do not disturb the quiet enjoyment of others does not reasonably come within this compromise. Nevertheless, with no demonstrated or discernible benefit, the majority arbitrarily sacrifice the dream to the tyranny of the commonality.