Our Los Angeles Real Estate Attorneys recently litigated the issue of whether claimants could enforce land covenants upon a property owner wherein there were no express provisions granting claimants the right to enforce the covenants.
California courts have held that Plaintiffs who did not own any land benefited by a particular covenant they sought to enforce, nevertheless had standing to bring a declaratory relief action because the Court found that the Plaintiffs were intended beneficiaries of the land covenant and therefore interested parties within the meaning of C.C.P. § 1060. See Monterey/Santa Cruz County Bldg. and Const. Trades Council v. Cypress Marina Heights LP, (2011) 191 Cal. App. 4th 1500, 1521-22.
In the Cypress Marina Heights LP case, the plaintiffs, who consisted of labor organizations, an association of contractors and two taxpayers, sought a declaration and injunction enforcing prevailing wage requirements found in property deeds. Id. at 1504. The trial court granted plaintiffs’ summary adjudication motion. Id. The developer defendants appealed the trial court’s judgment and challenged plaintiffs’ standing to bring declaratory relief since the plaintiffs did not own any land subject to the covenants. Id. at 1521.
In holding that the plaintiffs had standing and affirming the trial court’s ruling, the California Court of Appeal for the Sixth District held that the plaintiffs “had a beneficial interest in the enforcement of the prevailing wage requirement because it was intended to benefit them.” Id. at 1521. The plaintiffs in Cypress Marina Heights LP were not landowners or owners of benefited lands, but were benefited parties to the deed covenants sought to be enforced. In affirming the trial court’s judgment, the Court of Appeal held that these plaintiffs had standing pursuant to C.C.P. § 1060. Id