CULVER CITY — Natore Nahrstedt's cats are her children.

She has three--Boo-Boo, Dockers and Tulip. They eat turkey dinner on Thanksgiving and cakes with their names on them on their birthdays. Nahrstedt, 47, overlooks the fact that they can't hold a fork and like to lick their plates clean.

But some of Nahrstedt's neighbors at the Lakeside Village Condominiums in Culver City see cats differently. The homeowner association has a rule limiting pets to birds and fish. Cats are forbidden.

For four years, Nahrstedt and the Lakeside homeowner association have been fighting a legal war, and it appears that the next battleground will be the California Supreme Court. The outcome may affect whether millions of Californians who live in condominiums and planned communities can enforce no-pet rules and other community association regulations.

Nahrstedt, a personal business manager, has already spent $25,000 in legal fees. She said she is willing to risk her home.

"I will not get rid of these cats," she said. "They're my babies. I chose to have cats instead of babies. . . . If they were attacking your children, you'd go out and hire an attorney and do the same thing."

The fight began in 1988 when a neighbor spotted Tulip sunning in Nahrstedt's window and filed a complaint with management. The homeowner association sent letters demanding that Nahrstedt get rid of the cats. When she did not comply, the association began assessing fines that started at $25 a month and grew to $500 a month.

Nahrstedt refused to pay. In 1990, she sued, saying that the association invaded her privacy and that the fines were illegal. The association countersued.

A trial court threw out Nahrstedt's suit, saying it had no merit. Nahrstedt appealed.

The 2nd District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court decision in August and reinstated the case, saying it was up to the homeowner association to prove that the no-pet rule was reasonable.

"(Her) condominium home is her castle and her enjoyment of it should be by the least restrictive means possible, conducive with a harmonious communal living arrangement," the appeals court said in a 2-1 decision.

Lawyers representing community associations immediately appealed to the high court, which is supposed to hear cases with possible statewide impact. The California Supreme Court agreed last month to hear the case.