I stayed in the LRC all night, but didn’t do as much work as I’d have liked. Unfortunately, my dreams did not grant me special insights into my brief, but instead were about the joys of literacy (probably because I napped in a library). I napped for around four hours, on and off. I was up and about by 5 AM-ish and left the LRC around quarter past 7, when the Law Building opened for the day.
It’s a beautiful day, gonna be hot later, and I went back to my apartment to groom myself, take a shower, and get a fresh change of clothes and a snack. I decided today was a beige day, so I’m wearing a beige sweater over a plain white dress shirt. My hair’s been good recently; the layers look really nice, although I had to fix it when I got back to campus because it’s still quite windy. I took some vitamins and 15 mg of DayQuil.
In Property with Prof. Kahan we’re covering Common Interest Communities. In Nahrstedt v. Lakeside Vill. Condo. Ass’n, 878 P.2d 1275 (1994), the question is whether the pet restriction in a condo’s CC&R is reasonable: do the burdens on land use outweigh the policy’s benefits? Under California law, CC&Rs are presumed reasonable unless clearly demonstrated otherwise; furthermore, they have to be crappy for everyone, not just one person, to be unreasonable. Here, the Supreme Court of California found that even if it’s badly written, there are good reasons to want restrictions on pet or animal ownership: hygiene, noise, etc. Just because the CC&R screwed the plaintiff over doesn’t mean the CC&R screws the CIC over.
Justice Arabian’s dissent started with a banger (quoting Schweitzer): “There are two means of refuge from the misery of life: music and cats.” He argued that if homeownership means anything, it’s the ability to use your home as you see fit; the restriction didn’t provide much benefit to the community while preventing pet owners from enjoying their pets’ company. I hope Flynn and Oatis are doing well.
In Fink v. Miller, 896 P.2d 649 (1995), the question was about the thrilling subject of roofing materials: whether the shingles in a CIC had to be wood. Key here is abandonment: by the time of the case, only like eight homes had wood shingles; most had fiberglass or asphalt shingles. If everyone’s breaking a covenant, then that covenant isn’t enforceable. The Committee was caught lacking in its enforcement of the roofing policy. In the end, the Utah Court of Appeals granted summary judgment in favor of the Millers because there was no dispute of material fact (all parties accepted that Pandora’s Box had been opened). We didn’t get to Vernon Twp. Volunteer Fire Dep’t, Inc. v. Connor, 855 A.2d 873 (2004), before class ended.
I was doing really well until about half an hour ago, but my mood is cratering rapidly, and I don’t know why. The world seemed so bright and beautiful yesterday. Maybe I’m sleep deprived, I dunno. It’s not gonna change any time soon. I have a brief to overhaul. I’m going to the Criminal Justice Society panel after Property. I’m probably gonna finish my Crim homework at the same time. Tonight is gonna be more work on the brief. Jury’s out whether I stay on campus overnight again.
Sierpinski Tetrahedron 