Ojavan Investors, Inc. v. California Coastal Com.

Summary

The California Court of Appeal reviewed challenges to civil fines, a permanent injunction, summary adjudication, evidentiary rulings, discovery sanctions, and denial of a jury trial arising from violations of deed restrictions imposed as conditions of coastal development permits. The court held that the recorded restrictions ran with the land and bound the successor purchasers, and that the purchasers' separate transfers of restricted lots constituted development subject to liability under the California Coastal Act. The excerpt addresses the enforceability of the restrictions, statutory penalties, and related procedural rulings.

Holdings

1. The recorded declarations of restrictions ran with the land and bound Ojavan Investors even though they were not parties to the original deed restrictions or coastal development permits.
2. Summary adjudication was properly granted because the recorded declarations and grant deeds established the restrictions, the purchases and sales of individual lots, and liability under the Coastal Act, while Ojavan Investors failed to establish a triable issue of material fact.
3. Former Public Resources Code sections 30820 and 30821 authorized civil fines for the permit-related violations at issue, even though the former statutes did not expressly use the term permit.
4. Ojavan Investors' purchases and sales of individual lots constituted development under Public Resources Code section 30106 because the transactions divided the recombined parcels and violated the declarations of restrictions.
5. The permanent injunction ordering rescission of the unlawful lot transfers was a permissible civil equitable remedy, not an unconstitutional forfeiture.
6. The civil fines were not criminal or unconstitutional, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in setting their amounts.

Questions Presented

1. Whether summary adjudication of Coastal Act liability was proper based on recorded deed restrictions imposed on the property as conditions of prior coastal development permits.
2. Whether the Coastal Act and former Public Resources Code sections 30820 and 30821 authorized civil fines for successors who purchased and resold individual lots in violation of permit-related restrictions.
3. Whether purchasing and selling individual lots constituted development or a division of land subject to Coastal Act liability.
4. Whether the superior court abused its discretion by ordering rescission of the unlawful lot transfers through a permanent injunction.
5. Whether the civil fines were criminal, unconstitutional, excessive, or otherwise an abuse of discretion.
6. Whether the trial court's evidentiary, discovery-sanction, jury-trial, and related procedural rulings required reversal.

Disposition

affirmed