Mountain Park Homeowners Association v. Tydings
Washington Supreme Court
883 P.2d 1383 (1994)
Facts
Paddy and Richard Tydings (defendants) owned a house in the Mountain Park development. The Tydingses’ house, as part of the development, was subject to certain restrictive covenants, which were enforced by the Mountain Park Homeowners Association (the association) (plaintiffs). These covenants were enumerated in the development’s covenant declaration and included a prohibition on the placement of television antennae on the exterior of any house. The Tydingses installed a television satellite dish on their house. The association notified the Tydingses that they were in violation of the covenant and ordered the removal of the satellite dish. The Tydingses refused to remove the dish. The association brought a complaint against the Tydingses to enforce the covenant. Although the association had enforced the television association covenant against other homeowners, the Tydingses alleged that the association’s failure to enforce other covenants violated by homeowners in the development made the attempted enforcement of the antenna covenant discriminatory. The lower court eventually held in the Tydingses favor and dismissed the complaint. The association appealed, and the court of appeals reversed and remanded the lower court’s dismissal, holding that the enforcement of other covenants was irrelevant. The Tydingses appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Dolliver, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 711,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 44,600 briefs, keyed to 983 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.
