Lechuza Villas West v. California Coastal Com.

Good Law
1997 Cal. App. LEXIS 1074·60 Cal. App. 2d 218·60 Cal. App. 4th 218·70 Cal. Rptr. 2d 399·97 Daily Journal DAR 15277
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaDecember 19, 1997Docket Nos. B105571, B110008California12,717 words

Opinion

Opinion

Croskey, J.

A.

Factual and Procedural Background

In 1990, Lechuza Villas West, a California limited partnership (Lechuza), purchased unimproved beachfront property in Malibu from the Adamson Company for approximately $2 million (the property). The property consists of 17 legally subdivided contiguous lots, on which Lechuza wishes to build Tract No. 10630, which was subdivided by the Marblehead Land Company as shown on a tract map recorded in 1932 (the 1932 Tract Map). The subdivision was subject to covenants, conditions and restrictions also recorded by the Marblehead Land Company (the CC&R’s), which provided for the formation of a homeowners association, which association is now known as the Malibu-Encinal Home Owners Association (MEHOA), and which association is a party to this appeal. When Lechuza signed the purchase agreement for the property, it acknowledged that it was aware of possible limitations on development of the property, including (1) potential title claims by the State of California (the State), (2) easement claims by MEHOA, and (3) the fact that the location of the mean high tide line “will have a material effect on the existence, extent, configuration and…

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.