Back to its unanimous ways after an unusual spate of divided opinions (here, here, here, here, and here), the Supreme Court in Lynch v. California Coastal Commission today rules against owners of oceanfront properties who wanted to replace a storm-damaged seawall without having to comply with two conditions imposed by the California Coastal Commission. The owners were granted a permit subject to the 
conditions and then completed construction while their court challenge to the conditions was pending. The court’s 7-0 opinion by Justice Carol Corrigan holds that “the owners forfeited their challenge because they accepted the benefits the permit conferred.”
Disclosure: the heading for this post is not quite right. Besides the fact that “waive” probably isn’t an acceptable noun, there wasn’t really a waiver in this case. The court’s opinion instructs that “the more accurate term to describe the effect of plaintiffs’ actions is equitable forfeiture” and it explains, “Although the distinctions between waiver, estoppel, and forfeiture can be significant, the terms are not always used with care.” The heading is intentionally careless because it’s catchier that way.
The court affirms a 2-1 decision from the Fourth District, Division One, Court of Appeal.
