In 2015, a homeowner named Yu Ping Liu asked the Rolling Hills Community Association to make his neighbor trim trees that were blocking his view. That is a routine request in a community built around sightlines to the coast, Catalina Island, and downtown Los Angeles. The neighbor, Richard Colyear, did not see it that way. He sued Liu and the association, arguing that the tree-cutting covenant the association was trying to invoke had never applied to his property in the first place.

He was right. It took nine years, two trips through the Court of Appeal, and more than $1.3 million in attorney fees for the association to find that out.

For anyone preparing to list, buy, or simply understand what they own inside the gates, the case is worth more than a passing legal footnote. It settles a question that most people in Rolling Hills assume is already settled: whether the deed restrictions binding one property automatically bind the one next to it.

The Assumption That Doesn't Hold Up

Rolling Hills was never built under a single governing document. When developer A.E. Hanson and the Palos Verdes Corporation began platting the community in the 1930s, they recorded a founding declaration, Declaration 150, covering a narrow strip of lots down the middle of the community. As the development expanded over the following decades, new tracts were added under separate declarations, each one negotiated and recorded on its own terms. Some copied language from Declaration 150. Some didn't.

The case record lays out just how uneven that patchwork became. Declaration 150 covers roughly 84 lots and includes the tree-cutting covenant at the center of the dispute. Declaration 150-M, recorded in 1944 to bring in the tract that includes Colyear's property, covers roughly 14 lots and never included that covenant. The remaining roughly 657 lots fall under a mix of still other declarations, some of which include tree-cutting language and some of which don't.

Put plainly, there is no single Rolling Hills deed restriction. There are dozens of them, layered onto the community tract by tract, and the only way to know which one governs a specific address is to read the declaration recorded against that specific parcel.

What the Association Tried, and What the Court Said

Rather than treat that patchwork as a problem to be untangled parcel by parcel, the association tried to solve it by policy. In an internal resolution, the board asserted that the tree-cutting covenant applied community-wide, acknowledging in its own language that the covenant applied to some, if not all, properties in the city, then proceeding as if the gap didn't matter.

Colyear preemptively sued to establish that his lot was never bound by it. The trial court agreed with him. On appeal, the association argued that referencing Declaration 150 inside Declaration 150-M was enough to put owners like Colyear on notice that the tree covenant might reach their property too. The Court of Appeal rejected that argument in a published 2024 decision, holding that a covenant cannot bind a property unless the declaration actually recorded against that property describes it. A passing reference to another tract's rules doesn't count.

The court also rejected the association's fallback argument that using the community's roads and gates obligated an owner to accept every restriction the association wished it could enforce. Access to common areas and exposure to a specific covenant are not the same thing, and the court declined to link them.

The financial consequence was real. The trial court's fee award against the association, later reduced on appeal to exclude individual board members shielded by the business judgment rule, still left the association bearing more than a million dollars in legal costs to litigate a question that a title search could have answered at the outset.

Why This Matters Before You Sign Anything

Rolling Hills carries a median listing price of $4.5 million as of August 2026, according to market tracking for the city. At that price point, a covenant dispute is not a minor nuisance. It is the kind of unresolved question that can stall escrow, complicate a listing's disclosures, or surface mid-transaction when a buyer's attorney asks a question the seller has never had to answer.

The lesson from Colyear isn't that the Rolling Hills Community Association lacks authority. It has real authority over roads, gates, architectural review, and much of what defines the community's low-profile, ranch-style character. The lesson is narrower and more useful: that authority is only as broad as the specific declaration recorded against a specific lot, and no one should assume their restrictions mirror their neighbor's simply because they share a gate code.

Before listing or making an offer on a Rolling Hills property, a few steps are worth taking regardless of which side of the transaction you're on.

• Request the specific recorded declaration tied to the parcel, not a general summary of "RHCA rules." The association's office, located adjacent to City Hall on Portuguese Bend Road, can help identify which declaration applies.
• Compare that declaration against any view, tree, or landscaping issues already known on the property. If a dispute exists with a neighbor, confirm which declaration governs both lots before assuming either side's obligations.
• Understand that the City of Rolling Hills and the RHCA are separate entities with separate jurisdictions. The city handles permits, zoning, and public safety. The association handles the private deed restrictions, architectural standards, and easements that the Colyear case turned on.
• Treat any inherited assumption about "how things work here" as a starting point for verification, not a substitute for it.

None of this is a reason to avoid Rolling Hills. It's a reason to treat the paperwork with the same seriousness that buyers already bring to the acreage, the equestrian access, and the architectural review process. The declarations are a matter of public record. They just aren't uniform, and the Court of Appeal has now confirmed that assuming otherwise carries real cost.

Frequently Asked Questions

Does this ruling weaken the RHCA's authority overall? No. The decision doesn't limit the association's authority over roads, gates, or architectural review. It clarifies that covenant enforcement is tied to the specific recorded declaration on a given lot, not to community-wide policy statements layered on top of it.

How do I find out which declaration covers my property? The declaration is part of the recorded chain of title and should appear in a preliminary title report. The RHCA office, located next to City Hall, can also help identify which declaration applies to a given address.

Does this only affect tree-trimming disputes? The case specifically concerned a tree-cutting covenant, but the underlying principle, that a covenant only binds a property if the recorded declaration for that property actually contains it, applies to any covenant that varies from tract to tract.

Should sellers disclose anything differently because of this case? Any known, unresolved dispute over covenant applicability, view rights, or tree obligations should be addressed before listing. A buyer's attorney reviewing title is increasingly likely to ask which declaration governs the property, and having that answer ready avoids delay.

Rolling Hills rewards buyers and sellers who do their homework before the paperwork becomes urgent. If you're weighing a move in or out of the gates and want a clear read on what your specific declaration actually says, Suzanne Dyer can help you sort the recorded facts from the assumptions before you list.