Published in the ECHO Journal, May 2007
North Beverly Park, a common interest development governed by the Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act, is a luxury community located in Beverly Hills. It encompasses more than 300 acres divided into 64 residential lots. The association is managed by the North Beverly Park Homeowners’ Association, whose Architectural Review Committee (ARC) has discretion to approve or disapprove proposed improvements visible from the lot boundaries.
Association Affairs
In April 1999 Robert and Jeannette Bisno purchased a vacant lot in North Beverly Park and planned to build a residence. Disputes arose over the ARC’s disapproval of certain elements of the Bisnos’ construction plans. In particular the association objected to front gate design and a 17 foot sculpture in their front yard. In 2001, Mr. Bisno had observed the sculpture on display in the Place Vendome in Paris. He purchased it for $250,000, not thinking of the ARC. He was overcome by the beauty of the sculpture and did not imagine that the ARC would disapprove it.. However when the members of the ARC viewed the sculpture before it was installed, they disapproved it. The ARC’s opinion was that the sculpture was the most noticeable statuary in the community and its size was inappropriate for its placement—too large for the motor court and house, too close to the street. Further, the work was aesthetically out of character for the community, very different in style and theme from any other artistic work.
Ultimately the association filed suit against the Bisnos. Following a non-jury trial, the trial court granted a permanent injunction requiring the Bisnos to move the sculpture to a spot not visible from the street and to remove the gates. The Bisnos appealed and the Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court and ruled that the association was entitled to its costs on appeal.
Finally, in February 2007, the same Court of Appeal ruled that the Bisnos, who had claimed that the judge who ruled against them following their original bench trial was mentally incompetent —and who later retired after the Commission on Judicial Performance questioned his fitness—are not entitled to a new trial or to seek discovery of the judge’s medical records.
By Oliver Burford