{"id":127,"date":"2026-04-08T12:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-04-08T12:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=127"},"modified":"2026-04-08T12:00:00","modified_gmt":"2026-04-08T12:00:00","slug":"tulare-medical-center-ccrs-prohibit-abortion-clinics-unenforceable","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=127","title":{"rendered":"Tulare Medical Center Property Owners Assn. v. Valdivia \u2014 CC&Rs Adopted by Public Entity Cannot Prohibit Abortion Clinics in Medical Common Interest Development"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n
Case<\/dt>\n
Tulare Medical Center Property Owners Association v. Valdivia<\/dd>\n
Court<\/dt>\n
5th District Court of Appeal<\/dd>\n
Date Decided<\/dt>\n
2026-04-08<\/dd>\n
Docket No.<\/dt>\n
F089334<\/dd>\n
Status<\/dt>\n
Reported \/ Citable<\/dd>\n
Topics<\/dt>\n
CC&Rs; common interest development; reproductive rights; California Constitution article I section 1.1; Civil Code section 531; Unruh Civil Rights Act; preliminary injunction<\/dd>\n<\/dl>\n<\/div>\n

Background<\/h2>\n

In March 1991, the Tulare Local Hospital District, a California public entity, adopted and recorded covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CC&Rs) for a common interest development called the Tulare Medical Center. The CC&Rs limited use of parcels in the development to “medically related fields and not detrimental to the Tulare Local Hospital District.” The Tulare Medical Center Property Owners Association is responsible for enforcing the CC&Rs and may seek injunctive relief for violations.<\/p>\n

In 2001, the District transferred a parcel to Drs. Leopoldo and Jennifer Valdivia. The Valdivias’ parcel was subject to the original CC&Rs. Years later, the Valdivias allowed a family planning clinic to operate on the property and provide abortion services among its medical offerings.<\/p>\n

The Property Owners Association sued the Valdivias to enjoin the clinic’s abortion services as a violation of the CC&Rs, arguing that abortion services were either outside the medical fields permitted or were detrimental to the District. The Association sought a preliminary injunction. The trial court denied the injunction, and the Association appealed.<\/p>\n

The Court’s Holding<\/h2>\n

The Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed in a partially published opinion. The court held the CC&Rs’ prohibition on abortion clinics, as enforced against the Valdivias, was unenforceable for two independent reasons.<\/p>\n

First, the adoption and recording of the CC&Rs by a public entity (the Tulare Local Hospital District) constituted government action that interfered with the fundamental right of reproductive choice protected by Article I, sections 1 and 1.1 of the California Constitution. Article I, section 1.1, added by California voters in 2022 in response to Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, expressly guarantees the right to reproductive freedom. Government action that intrudes on this fundamental right must be evaluated under the strict compelling interest standard. The Association presented no compelling interest justifying the prohibition; therefore, enforcement would violate the California Constitution and a fundamental public policy of the state.<\/p>\n

Second, Civil Code section 531 voids any covenant or condition in a recorded instrument that indirectly limits the use of real property because of a characteristic protected by the Unruh Civil Rights Act. The court held the prohibition on abortion clinics indirectly restricted the property’s use based on a protected characteristic, rendering the restriction void as a matter of statute.<\/p>\n

Because the Association could not show a likelihood of succeeding on the merits, the trial court properly denied the preliminary injunction.<\/p>\n

Key Takeaways<\/h2>\n