Prevailing Party Under Davis-Stirling Act Is A Pragmatic Inquiry, With Fees Mandatory If Prevailing Status Is Properly Made.
Almanor Lakeside Villas Owners Assn. v. Carson, Case No. H041030 (6th Dist. Apr. 19, 2016) (published) involves a $101,803.15 fees/costs award to a prevailing homeowner association against homeowners who were found to have violated short-term vacation rental CC&R provisions but were only fined $6,620 in fines out of a requested $19,979.97. Homeowners were not happy, but got no solace from the Sixth District on appeal.
The appellate court concluded that the Davis-Stirling Act fee shifting provision is mandatory in favor of a prevailing party, although a pragmatic consideration governs through a judicial determination of what side achieved its litigation objectives in the case. The trial judge concluded that HOA did, by enforcing the CC&Rs and getting some fines. The fractional damages award did not negate the broader impact of the ruling that the CC&Rs could be enforced and fines levied. Nothing in the Act supported the proposition there had to be a reduction based on the degree of success, unlike in other areas (such as civil rights). Homeowners creatively argued that the damages award was under the $25,000 superior court threshold allowing for discretion to not award any fees at all pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1033(a), but the reviewing court found that section 1033 did not apply in the Stirling-Davis Act context (as opposed to being applicable to FEHA actions). The appellate court did agree that the lower court could reduce the amount of fees for incomplete success, but was not mandated to do so. Fee/costs award affirmed in this particular situation.