In Ekstrom v. Marquesa at Monarch Beach Homeowners Assn. (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 1111, a homeowner in a beachfront development and several neighbors sued their association, alleging that many palm trees in the development had grown to heights exceeding the height of the rooftops, in violation of a provision of the CC&R's requiring all trees on a lot be trimmed so as not to be higher than the roof. (Id. at pp. 1113-1114.) The association had excluded palm trees from compliance with this provision because trimming was not possible and the trees would have to be removed. (Ibid.) The trial court found in favor of the homeowners and the appellate court affirmed. (Ekstrom, supra, 168 Cal.App.4th at p. 1114.) The trial court found no ambiguity in the provision of the CC&R's governing trees. It therefore required the association to enforce the CC&R's as to all trees, including palm trees. (Id. at p. 1120.) "In the context of the CC&R's, the plain meaning of the term '"trimmed" means removed, as by cutting, or cut down to a required size.'" (Id. at p. 1119.) The appellate court said: "Even if the Board was acting in good faith and in the best interests of the community as a whole, its policy of excepting all palm trees from the application of section 7.18 was not in accord with the CC&R's, which require all trees be trimmed so as to not obscure views. The Board's interpretation of the CC&R's was inconsistent with the plain meaning of the document and thus not entitled to judicial deference. " (Ekstrom, supra, 168 Cal.App.4th at p. 1123.) In sum, in Ekstrom v. Marquesa at Monarch Beach Homeowners Assn., a group of homeowners sued their homeowners association, individual members of its board of directors, and its property management company. (Id. at pp. 1113, 1118.) Plaintiffs contended the association violated the CC&Rs by refusing to enforce, as to palm trees, a provision requiring that all trees obstructing views be trimmed, topped, or removed. (Id. at p. 1121.) The Court affirmed the judgment in favor of the homeowners compelling the association to enforce the CC&Rs as to palm trees, rejecting the association's assertion the judicial deference rule protected its decision. The court opined: "Even if the Board was acting in good faith and in the best interests of the community as a whole, its policy of excepting all palm trees from the application of section 7.18 was not in accord with the CC&Rs, which require all trees be trimmed so as to not obscure views. The Board's interpretation of the CC&Rs was inconsistent with the plain meaning of the document and thus not entitled to judicial deference. " (Id. at p. 1123.)