Warren v. Harootunian

• Decision Date: 28 February 1961
• Citation: 189 Cal.App.2d 546,11 Cal.Rptr. 305
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: Albert G. WARREN and Ann M. Warren, Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. Aram HAROOTUNIAN, Stella Harootunian, Gerald A. Shutt and Virginia Shutt, Defendants, Aram Harootunian and Stella Harootunian, Appellants. Civ. 9980.

Page 305

11 Cal.Rptr. 305

189 Cal.App.2d 546

Albert G. WARREN and Ann M. Warren, Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. Aram HAROOTUNIAN, Stella Harootunian, Gerald A. Shutt and Virginia Shutt, Defendants Aram Harootunian and Stella Harootunian, Appellants.

Civ. 9980.

District Court of Appeal, Third District, California.

Feb. 28, 1961.

Max H. Hoseit, Sacramento, for appellants.

Ralph E. Kingston, Bijou, for respondents.

SCHOTTKY, Justice.

Aram Harootunian and Stella Harootunian have appealed from a judgment in favor of Albert G. Warren and Ann M. Warren which was entered after the Warrens' demurrer to the Harootunians' answer was sustained with leave to amend and they failed to amend.

The action was brought by the Warrens to determine the validity of certain building restrictions on property which they owned. The complaint alleged that the Warrens were the owners of certain real property in Al Tahoe; that they had received the property by grant deed from Gerald A. Shutt and Virginia Shutt for the sum of $2,500; that the deed contained a provision that the property was subject to certain 'covenants, conditions and restrictions now of record;' that the Shutts derived their title from the Harootunians; and that the deed contained the following restriction: 'One private dwelling to contain no less than 650 square feet of floor space; no tents, trailers or camping allowed at any time; and plans for home and set backs to be approved in writing by sellers.' It was further alleged that the Warrens desired to construct a multiple family dwelling on the property; that they could not build without subjecting themselves to the hazard of violating the building restrictions and to the hazard of litigation. It was also alleged that the property was subdivided by the Harootunians; that they had sold virtually all the property; that building restrictions were inserted in some of the deeds to some of the property sold and not in others; that the result has been some property is subject to the restrictions and some not; that the Harootunians have failed to enforce the building restrictions; that in the immediate vicinity of the property owned by the Warrens buildings have been erected in violation of the restrictions; that the Warrens' lot is no longer suitable for a single family residence; and that by reason of the changed conditions and the failure of the Harootunians to enforce the restrictions they are not binding. The Warrens asked the court to declare the restrictions not binding, unenforceable in equity, and the erection of a multiple family dwelling would not be in violation of the restrictions.

Defendants, Aram Harootunian and Stella Harootunian, filed an answer denying the allegations of the complaint and also set up three affirmative defenses which alleged laches and estoppel. The Shutts were served with process but failed to appear.

Plaintiffs filed a general demurrer to the answer, the demurrer stating '[t]hat the answer does not state facts sufficient to constitute a defense or...