Plaintiff’s Fee Request Of $145,212.67 Rebuffed By Trial and Appellate Courts.
This next case should illustrate how both trial and appellate jurists try to get to the nub of a dispute—with the ultimate decision on the nature of the claim being very decisive on whether there is fee entitlement.
Martini v. Bel Azure Homeowners Assn., Case No. D072288 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Apr. 12, 2018) (unpublished) was a situation where a plaintiff sued a HOA after suffering a fall on HOA premises. Plaintiff did win a negligence action for under $11,000 against HOA affiliates. She then moved for $137,167.50 in attorney’s fees and $8,045.17 in costs against the HOA Defendants. The trial court denied the fee request, and the appellate court agreed.
The problem here was that the CC&Rs, although containing a fees clause, had one which was narrow in scope. Specifically, the fees clause talked about fee entitlement to a prevailing party in “litigation to enforce or interpret” the CC&Rs. Although some disputes might fall within the ambit of the fees clause, the negligence cause of action did not. The Legislature, under the Davis-Stirling Act fee authorization, did not allow a prevailing party to recover fees more broadly than an action to actually enforce the CC&Rs. Since the action was really a negligence/premises liability claim, no fees were recoverable, as the lower court found.
No different result occurred under Civil Code section 1717. This was really a tort claim, with the CC&R fees clause being too narrow to encompass tort claims. Second ground, also, did not provide relief to appellant on appeal.