Lakes at Mercer Island Homeowners’ Association v. Witrak
Washington Court of Appeals
810 P.2d 27 (1991)
- Written by Mary Phelan D'Isa, JD
Facts
The Lakes at Mercer Island Homeowners’ Association (the association) (plaintiff) sued homeowner Bonnie Witrak (defendant), seeking an order that Witrak remove from her property a row of 30 trees that were 25-30 feet in height, were immediately adjacent to Witrak’s boundary line with a neighbor, and obstructed the neighbor’s views. The association had previously rejected Witrak’s plans to build an addition to her home, which according to a restrictive covenant required association approval before any construction. After Witrak planted the trees, she resubmitted her plans and suggested that the trees improved the construction plans and obviated the view-obstruction objection. The applicable landscaping-and-fencing covenant required association approval for any fences, walls, or shrubs delineating lot lines and prohibited any fence exceeding six feet in height. The trial court ruled that Witrak’s trees did not constitute a wall or a fence and granted summary judgment for Witrak. The association appealed. Witrak urged the court to adopt a literal definition, arguing that the covenant should be strictly construed with any doubts resolved in her favor and that, as a matter of law, fences may not be naturally grown.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Forrest, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 790,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
