State High Court to Hear Condo Owner’s Challenge to Pet Ban

Is a pet owner’s condominium her castle?

The state Supreme Court agreed Thursday to decide whether that adage can be applied to a condo owner who wants to sue her homeowners’ association to overturn pet restrictions she believes are unreasonable.

The case could have broad impact: An estimated 3 million Californians live in condos, planned communities and other developments subject to homeowner pet rules and other regulations.

Under review is a state Court of Appeal ruling last August allowing Natore A. Nahrstedt of Culver City to bring suit after she was fined $500 a month for keeping three cats in her condo.

“(Her) home is her castle and her enjoyment of it should be by the least restrictive means possible, conducive with a harmonious communal living arrangement,” the appeal court said in a 2-1 decision.

Lawyers for community associations, alarmed by the ruling, appealed to the high court. If the appellate decision is allowed to stand, they said, it will be difficult or impossible to enforce standard pet restrictions and other association rules, such as those governing architectural design.

Leonard Siegel, a Beverly Hills attorney representing the homeowner association in the case, welcomed the high court’s action. The appellate ruling, he said, placed a costly burden on associations to defend pet restrictions that homeowners legitimately expected to be enforced when they bought into such developments.

“We’re not against pets as such,” Siegel said. “These homeowners have spent considerable sums of money on their residences, and they are entitled to have their contractual expectations fulfilled.”

Joel F. Tamraz of Santa Monica, the attorney for Nahrstedt, said the case will have broad impact on the countless condo owners who have--or want--dogs, cats and other pets in their homes.

“A person has a right to a pet--as much as they have a right to a child--as long as it doesn’t impede on the rights of their neighbors,” Tamraz said. “Inside the four walls of their own condos, people are entitled to a right to privacy. . . . A lot of these restrictions are very, very arbitrary.”

The case arose after the governing board of the Lakeside Village Condominium Assn. learned that Nahrstedt was keeping three pet cats in her condo in violation of association rules. The regulations permit two birds in cages and two fish in tanks, but bar other animals from its units.

Nahrstedt was assessed a series of monthly fines up to $500 for keeping the cats, her sole companions in the condo. She brought suit against the association, asking that the rules be voided and seeking damages for invasion of privacy and negligent infliction of emotional distress.

A Los Angeles trial court threw out the suit but the appellate panel reinstated the case, saying the association must show that the rules were reasonable.

It was quite conceivable that allowing the cats to live in her condo “will pose less of a threat to the peace and quiet of the parties’ communal living arrangement than would stereo equipment, parties or young visitors,” Appellate Justice H. Walter Croskey wrote for the majority.

In dissent, Appellate Justice Edward A. Hinz Jr. said the pet restriction was fair and rational. “Cat occupancy can create offensive and unpleasant odor, additional sewage, trash and litter . . . and the potential for disease, allergies and pests that affect neighbors,” he wrote.

In other action Thursday, the high court:

* Let stand an appeal court decision preventing Orange County Municipal Court judges from jailing Sheriff Brad Gates for contempt after Gates freed prisoners prior to their release dates. The Court of Appeal said Gates had no choice in view of a federal court order limiting the inmate population at the Central Men’s Jail in Santa Ana.

* Unanimously upheld the death sentence of Michael Hill, 37, for the 1985 murder of an Oakland jeweler and his 3-year-old son, who had known the convicted killer as “Uncle Mike.” Prosecutors said Hill robbed the jeweler, Anthony Brice Sr., to pay a drug debt.

A witness quoted Hill as admitting he had “a lick up at a slum shop.” The term “lick up” meant a robbery and “slum shop” meant a fake-jewelry store, authorities said.