Hanson v. Salishan Properties, Inc.
| Citation | 267 Or. 199,515 P.2d 1325 |
| Parties | Carolyn D. HANSON et al., Respondents, v. SALISHAN PROPERTIES, INC., a corporation, et al., Appellants, Salishan Leaseholders, Inc., a non-profit corporation, and Van Evera Bailey, Defendants. |
| Decision Date | 23 November 1973 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Oregon |
Cleveland C. Cory, Portland, argued the cause for appellants. With him on the briefs were Clarence R. Wicks, and Davies, Biggs, Strayer, Stoel & Boley, attorneys for appellants Salishan Properties, Inc., and Colwell, Gray, Mikkelson, Pugh, Schwarz and Scrogin; and Dean D. DeChaine, and Miller, Anderson, Nash, Yerke & Wiener, Portland, attorneys for appellant Michael P. Lockwood.
James H. Clarke, Portland, argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief were James C. Dezendorf, Craig E. Iverson, Richard H. Williams, and Dezendorf, Spears, Lubersky & Campbell, Portland.
Before O'CONNELL, C.J., and HOLMAN, TONGUE, HOWELL and BRYSON, JJ.
This is a suit for a permanent injunction prohibiting defendant Lockwood from building a specific kind of house on his leased Salishan beach-front lot. The proceeding was brought by three upland leaseholders who alleged that the proposed home unreasonably interfered with their view of the beach and of the Pacific Ocean. Salishan Properties, Inc., the common lessor, and the members of its Architectural Committee were joined as defendants on the ground that a majority of the committee had unlawfully sanctioned and permitted Lockwood to commence the construction of a two-story house.
Plaintiffs contend this permission violated certain lease covenants common to all lessees as well as policies set forth in a 'checklist' of 'Architectural Considerations' which was mentioned in the lease and which had been circulated by Salishan Properties, Inc., to prospective lessees, including plaintiffs. The above-named defendants appealed from a decree preventing defendant Lockwood from building a house of more than one story. All defendants other than those mentioned above were dismissed.
All leases from Salishan Properties, Inc., provided for the formation of an Architectural Committee and contained the following relevant provisions:
'* * *.
'Salishan, Inc. is willing to lease to Lessees on a long-term basis a homesite in Salishan, provided that Lessees will agree to certain conditions and restrictions on the use of such site designed to protect Salishan and other Salishan tenants.
'Lessees wish to lease a homesite. LESSEES UNDERSTAND THAT THEIR RIGHT TO USE THE HOMESITE WILL BE SUBJECT TO THE COVENANTS, RESTRICTIONS, AND CONDITIONS HEREIN SET FORTH AND THAT THE SAME WILL BE STRICTLY ENFORCED.
'* * *.
'Section 30. Approval of plans by architectural committee.
'30.1 Salishan, Inc. recognizes that there can be an infinite number of artistic conceptions and ideas for the development of homesites consistent with its plan for Salishan. Salishan, Inc. wishes to encourage the formulation of such conceptions and ideas. Nevertheless, for the protection of all Salishan tenants, Salishan, Inc. wishes through the architectural committee, to make certain that any development of a homesite will be consistent with its plan for Salishan. The architectual committee has prepared an architectural checklist setting forth general concepts for the development of Salishan which is available at the office of Salishan, Inc. Such checklist may be modified from time to time.
'* * *.
'Section 33. View.
'It is important that Lessees shall restrict the height of improvements on the leased premises and the height of trees and vegetation growing thereon to the end that the view of other Salishan tenants shall be preserved to the greatest extent reasonably possible. Limitation as to the height of improvements will be accomplished through the provisions contained in Section 30 * * *.
'* * *.'
The 'checklist' of 'Architectural Considerations' mentioned in the lease which was distributed to all purchasers contained the following:
'* * *.
'* * *.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Valenti v. Hopkins
...to defer to the ACC's interpretation of the enabling covenant or to its findings on the merits, relying on Hanson v. Salishan Properties, Inc., 267 Or. 199, 515 P.2d 1325 (1973). The court proceeded to review the trial court's decision de novo and concluded that, within the meaning of the c......
-
Taylor v. McCollom
...appealed, and we reversed. Valenti v. Hopkins, 131 Or.App. 100, 883 P.2d 882 (1994). We concluded that, under Hanson v. Salishan Properties, Inc., 267 Or. 199, 515 P.2d 1325 (1973), the ACC's construction of "adjacent lot" in the view protection covenant was not entitled to preclusive effec......
-
Ebbe v. Senior Estates Golf and Country Club
...of a scheme of restrictions may be left for future determination without invalidating the covenant. See Hanson v. Salishan Properties, Inc., 267 Or. 199, 515 P.2d 1325 (1973) (approval of building plans on lots subject to review of architectural committee). No party here disputes that the s......
-
Valenti v. Hopkins
...in the context of the committee's determination as to the application of restrictive covenants. Both rely on Hanson v. Salishan Properties, Inc., 267 Or. 199, 515 P.2d 1325 (1973), to support their respective Hanson involved an interpretation of covenants that provided for restriction of "t......