Denktas

Deane Gardenhome Assn. v. Denktas

Good Law
13 Cal. App. 4th 1394·16 Cal. Rptr. 2d 816·1993 Cal. App. LEXIS 189·93 Daily Journal DAR 2623·93 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1468
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaFebruary 26, 1993G012381California1,859 words

Opinion

Opinion

Wallin, J.

Deane Gardenhome Association (the Association) filed suit against Haluk and Mary Denktas for injunctive relief and damages after the Denktases allegedly painted their house in violation of the Association’s restrictive covenants (CC&R’s) encumbering the Denktases’ property. The CC&R’s contained an attorney fees provision. The trial court entered judgment in favor of the Denktases, but denied their request for attorney fees. The Denktases appeal, contending the trial court abused its discretion. We reverse and remand with directions.

The Denktases were homeowners in a Huntington Beach development governed by the Association and covered by CC&R’s recorded in 1982. The CC&R’s required homeowners to obtain approval of the Association’s architectural review committee before painting the exterior of the house and restricted the color choices to those approved by the Association. The Denktases hired a painter to paint their house pink and green. The painter took paint samples to the Association’s president to obtain his approval of the colors. The president approved the green shade but admonished the painter to “tone down” the pink shade. The painter returned with a different…

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.