## Facts

- Mountain Park Homeowners Association, Inc. governed a 244-unit planned community subject to recorded covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CCRs) enforced through an architectural control committee (ACC).
- The CCRs prohibited exterior radio or television antennas unless approved by the ACC before installation.
- In 1988, Paddy and Richard Tydings installed an exterior satellite dish without ACC approval.
- After a resident complaint, the Association demanded removal; the Tydings refused and did not dispute that their dish violated the antenna covenant.
- The Tydings asserted equitable defenses, claiming the antenna covenant was abandoned and that enforcement was non-uniform or discriminatory because other CCR provisions had been violated without enforcement.
- The trial court denied the Association’s motion for summary judgment, allowed discovery, treated violations of other covenants as relevant to the defenses, and later granted summary judgment for the Tydings, dismissing the action with prejudice.
- The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, reasoning (in part) that violations of other covenants were not determinative of enforcement of the antenna covenant.
- The Washington Supreme Court granted review to address the relevance of other-covenant violations and whether the Association had forfeited its appellate arguments.

## Issues

1. Whether violations of other, non-antenna covenants may be considered in deciding abandonment or non-uniform enforcement of the antenna covenant.
2. Whether the Association forfeited its ability to challenge the trial court’s legal rulings by appealing only from the final judgment rather than earlier interlocutory orders.

## Decision

- The Washington Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ reversal of the summary judgment for the Tydings and remanded for further proceedings.
- The Court rejected a categorical rule that other-covenant violations are always irrelevant to abandonment or selective enforcement of a specific covenant.
- The Court held other-covenant violations may be relevant, but only when they meaningfully bear on whether the general plan has eroded or whether enforcement of the specific covenant is being applied arbitrarily or discriminatorily.
- The Court held the Association did not procedurally forfeit its arguments; an appeal from the final judgment permitted review of the underlying rulings that led to dismissal.

## Legal Principles

- A restrictive covenant barring exterior antennas for aesthetic and economic purposes is generally enforceable and may run with the land.
- Abandonment requires habitual and substantial violation without penalty such that enforcement would be useless and inequitable; a small number of violations is insufficient.
- Evidence of violations of different covenants is not automatically irrelevant; it may be probative if it shows deterioration of the general development scheme to a degree that makes enforcement of the specific covenant inequitable.
- Non-uniform enforcement of other CCR provisions does not automatically defeat enforcement of a particular covenant, but patterns of arbitrary, targeted, or discriminatory enforcement may support equitable defenses depending on context.
- An appellant may challenge interlocutory legal rulings on appeal from the final judgment that incorporated those rulings.

## Conclusion

The court allowed a fact-specific inquiry into whether violations of other covenants and enforcement patterns bear on abandonment or equitable enforcement of an antenna restriction, affirmed reversal of the homeowners’ summary judgment victory, and remanded for further proceedings without finding any appellate forfeiture by the association.


Mt. Park Homeowners Ass’n, Inc. v. Tydings, 125 Wash. 2d 337, 883 P.2d 1383 (Wash. 1994)