Razo

Razo v. Andersson CA4/3

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 6, 2026G063747California2,790 words

Opinion

Opinion

Sanchez, J.

FACTS

The CC&Rs were recorded in 2001. Their recital stated their purpose was to “enforc[e], protect[] and preserv[e] the value, desirability and attractiveness of the Project.” The CC&Rs defined the “‘Project’” as a “‘Condominium Project,’” and the “‘Property’” as a “‘Common Interest Development.’” The “‘Property’” included the real property (Property) upon which the Razos’ and Andersson’s “Units” were situated. The CC&Rs defined a “‘Unit’” by reference to former Civil Code section 1351, subdivision (f). That

2 section defined a “Unit” as a “separate interest in space . . . the boundaries of which are described on a recorded final map.” (Former Civ. Code, § 1351, subd. (f), amended by Stats. 2000, ch. 26, § 1, and repealed by Stats. 2012, ch. 180, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 2014.) Their description may refer to “physical boundaries, either in existence, or to be constructed, such as walls, floors, and ceilings.” (Ibid.) On the recorded final map here, the boundaries of each Unit were depicted by lines identified as “walls.” The Property also contained “‘Common Area’” and “‘Exclusive Use Common Area(s).’” Everything on the Property, other than a Unit, was Common Area. Exclusive Use…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.