King County Superior Court Decision on Somerset Remodel 金县高等法院关于萨默塞特房屋改建的判决**

** Due to platform limitations, we recommend using Google Translate to translate the article to the language of your preference.
** 由于平台限制，我们建议使用谷歌翻译将文章翻译成您选择的语言。


Recently, King County Superior Court decided a case filed by Somerset residents (plaintiffs) who opposed, on view impact grounds, a CRC-approved remodel to a nearby home. The judge handling the case, after reviewing extensive legal briefs and hearing oral arguments by both sides, issued a summary judgment upholding the neighbors’ (defendants’) right to remodel their home as approved through the CRC process. This case provides useful guidance for future such disputes.

During the case, the plaintiffs subpoenaed historical CRC case files. The CRC also provided other relevant information to the parties involved. Past and present CRC Chairs (Gary Albert, Diane Fern, and Chloe Chen) were requested to provide sworn declarations for the lawsuit. After reviewing the parties’ arguments based on such materials, the judge confirmed that the CRC-approved remodel complied with the CRC-developed View Guidelines, found no fault with the CRC process, and noted consistent application of the View Guidelines by the current CRC and previous CRC chairs in past cases.

Particularly noteworthy was the judge’s rejection of the lawsuit claims that the remodel approval violated the View Guidelines. For background context, the View Guidelines were developed by the CRC as a tool to help the CRC make fair and consistent decisions. These guidelines define Somerset’s protected views, comprised of the View Elements (mountains, water, and city skylines), which are evaluated from a specific Observation Zone. They are based on extensive research of our Covenants, historical artifacts from the original Building Committee, and relevant caselaw. The View Guidelines have undergone several iterations between 2008 and 2023, but the View they intended to protect remains unchanged.

The CRC has built a history since 2008 of consistent, reasonable, and impartial decision-making by reasonably applying the Covenants, informed by the View Guidelines. The lawsuit defendants won in court by pointing out the consistency of their CRC remodel approval with that history, the Guidelines, and the Covenants.   Therefore, after reviewing the details of the judge’s decision, we do not anticipate any changes to the CRC review process as upheld by the Court. Instead, the lawsuit outcome’s message is that, to avoid being overturned in court, we should continue to make decisions carefully, based on the process and standards that were followed for the remodel decision.

CRC members are all volunteer Somerset residents who enjoy and want to protect the sweeping views that Somerset is well known for. Unfortunately, although the CRC was not itself named as a lawsuit defendant, the lawsuit plaintiffs relied upon declarations that personally accused CRC members of dishonesty and of pushing an agenda to deprive Somerset residents of their views. The declarations came from Charles Bofferding and Francis Brito who are not Board members (Bofferding is the leader of a group trying to change the Division 8 covenants). These accusations, which targeted by name and in personal terms individual CRC members, were surprising, hurtful, and untrue.

Ultimately, the judge ruled that the plaintiffs’ claims, “present as speculation and conjecture” and that their various accusations “are not genuine or specific facts.” He concluded that “the record reflects no factual support that the CRC was improperly constituted or that it engaged in improper conduct.” The judge therefore issued Orders granting summary judgment and awarding to defendants a total of approximately $100,000.00 in attorney’s fees and court costs to be paid by plaintiffs.

Please reach out to the CRC at [email protected] if you have any covenant related requests, questions, or concerns.