In Dolan-King v. Rancho Santa Fe Assn. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 965, a homeowner sued her homeowners association after it rejected her proposed plans for home additions and other improvement to her property. (Id. at pp. 969-970.) The homeowner sought a declaration the association's actions were invalid. (Ibid.) The Court of Appeal noted the action was one for declaratory relief and the trial court's determination was subject to an abuse of discretion standard of review. (Id. at p. 974.) The Court of Appeal further held, however, that because the underlying facts--the homeowner's proposed designs and the board's actions--were undisputed, the case presented a question of law. (Id. at p. 974.) The court further held: "To the extent our review of the trial court's declaratory judgment involves an interpretation of the Covenant's provisions, that too is a question of law we address de novo." (Ibid.) In short, a homeowner challenged the association's decision to reject a proposed home addition and fence for aesthetic reasons. ( Id. at pp. 969-970.) Some of the applicable aesthetics requirements were contained in the original recorded declaration ( id. at p. 970), while others were contained in guidelines subsequently promulgated by the association ( id. at p. 972, fn. 2). The Dolan-King court applied Nahrstedt's deferential standard of review to the restrictions contained in the original recorded covenant, but not to those contained in the subsequently promulgated guidelines. ( Id. at pp. 975, 977.)