Opinion ID: 1134395
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Conflict of testimony whether house is one story house; interference with view.

Text: Plaintiffs' complaint alleges that defendants' house violated the building restrictions in that    the building has more than one story above the level of the street upon which it fronts, in that it is not in harmony with existing buildings in the addition, in that it restricts the view of plaintiffs, and in that the design, material and construction of said building is inferior to existing buildings in the addition. The principal disputed issue of fact at the time of trial was whether the house has more than one story above the level of the street. There was a direct conflict in the testimony on that issue. The front of the lot on which the house is built slopes downward from left to right. The floor of the daylight basement (if it is a basement) is excavated into the hillside on the left or upper side, with windows above the ground level. The floor of the adjacent garage, on the right or lower side, is not below ground level. Above that daylight basement and garage is a split level living area. Plaintiff offered the testimony of a realtor-appraiser, who had not seen the interior of the house, to the effect that it is more than a one story house and is a split entry or a tri-level house. That witness admitted, however, that the definition of a `story' would exclude that level between the concrete masonry floor below grade and the next floor up, because [o]therwise, every house out there would be two stories. Defendants offered the testimony of the contractor who built the house that the basement area of the house [is] below the street level and the house has only one story above street level. As previously stated, however, the basement has windows above the ground level. Mr. Rogers, the builder-designer, also testified that in the trade this house would be classified as a one-story house. It was conceded, however, that the roof of the house obstructed a portion of the view from plaintiffs' house in that plaintiffs could no longer see Mt. St. Helens to the northeast, although they could still see Mt. Hood to the east. On the other hand, it was also conceded that the height of defendants' house from the middle point of the front line was twenty-one feet, three inches, and that there would be a greater obstruction to plaintiffs' view by a one-story house with a height of twenty-four feet, as permitted under the building restrictions.