Court Opinion

ID: 9550239
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 18:32:32.359209+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:18:53.225277
License: Public Domain

PETERS, P. J.
I dissent.
The majority construe the disputed clause to mean that the original committee, under the agreement, was to serve until January 1, 1947, and thereafter, until the property owners should select their representative. This construction is primarily predicated upon the belief that it was the fundamental intent of the signers of the agreement to limit the use of the property up to January 1, 1966. For this reason, it is held, the parties must have intended that a committee should be in existence at all times up until that date. This is a possible and perhaps even a reasonable construction of the agreement, but it is not the only construction, and, in my opinion, is not the most reasonable construction.
The interpretation of the restriction in question, there being no extrinsic evidence of intent, is a question of law and not of fact. For that reason I agree with the implied holding in the majority opinion that this court is not bound by the interpretation of the trial court, even though that interpretation may have been a reasonable one. (Estate of Platt, 21 Cal.2d 343, 352 [131 P.2d 825] ; Trubowitch v. Riverbank Canning Co., 30 Cal.2d 335, 339 [182 P.2d 182].) But the fact that the trial court has construed the provision is a factor that should be weighed together with all other factors in arriving at a construction.
Reference should be made to one other rule of law. The provision here involved is a limitation upon the free use of property. It is the established rule, mentioned in the majority opinion “that restrictive covenants are to be strictly construed against limitations upon the free use of property.” (See Wing v. Forest Lawn Cemetery Assn., 15 Cal.2d 472, 479 [101 P.2d 1099, 130 A.L.R. 120]; Werner v. Graham, 181 Cal. 174, 181 [183 P. 945].)
The majority opinion attempts to construe the words used in paragraph third and comes to the conclusion that the *695controlling intent of the parties was that they wanted a committee in existence to approve plans and specifications during the entire 25-year period. Predicated on this basic premise the majority conclude that it must have been the intent of the parties that the original committee should have continuous existence during the entire 25-year period unless the property owners, after January 1, 1947, superseded the original committee by designating a new representative. This reasoning is sound only if the basic premise is sound, and, in my opinion, it is not.
Such a construction not only violates the rule that restrictive covenants are to be construed strictly against limitations on the free use of property, but completely disregards the relative positions of the contracting parties and the realities of that relationship.
The declaration of restrictions was drafted by Weston and his wife and by Stanley and his wife. It recites that they were then the owners of all the lots in question and were about to subdivide the area and sell the lots. This declaration was executed and recorded in June of 1941, before any lots were sold. By paragraph third the subdividers set up a committee of three of their own choosing—the two Westons and a Mr. Johnson—which committee, it was provided, “shall act and serve until January 1, 1947” at which time the then record owners of the property were authorized to elect their representative if they so desired. The first committee was to represent and be controlled by the subdividers; the new representative, if elected, was to represent the prospective purchasers of lots in the tract, an entirely different group of people from the subdividers and with different interests to protect. Thus, it seems quite clear to me that the agreement contemplates that the subdividers by 1947 would have sold all of the lots in the tract. The subdividers desired to retain complete control of the types of structures to be erected thereon until they had completed the subdivision, but after that date they contemplated that they would have no further interest therein. Paragraph third clearly expresses the intent to set up a committee to represent the subdividers, which committee should serve until 1947, and then the property owners, if they desired, could elect their representative to represent them. Since the property owners did not exercise this power until sometime in 1950, the conclusion seems inevitable that the restriction in question became inoperative during this three-year period, and that this was the intent *696and desire of the property owners. The construction is strengthened by the fact that there is no allegation in either complaint that the subdivider’s committee continued to act after January 1, 1947, and until August 10, 1950, when it purported to disapprove the plans of defendants.
For these reasons I think the construction given the agreement by the trial court was correct and should be affirmed.
Respondents’ petition for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied March 13, 1952. Carter, J., was of the opinion that the petition should be granted.