Homeowners Association/Arbitration: Duo Unpublished Decisions Out Of 2/6 DCA Are Interesting

 

     Well, we are closing out a year, but our intermediate California Courts of Appeal are still busy. Here are two from the Second District, Division 6.

Smith v. Vista Grande, Inc., Case No. B242332 (2d Dist., Div. 6 Dec. 31, 2013) (Unpublished) – Homeowners Association.

Lighting hot water heater in house at the Kearney Mesa defense housing project. This young man came out to California from Oklahoma ten years ago. He has been an agricultural worker and has lived in various FSA (Farm Security Administration) camps. He is now employed as a painter at the Consolidated Aircrafts

     Lighting hot water heater in house at Kearney Mesa defense housing project.  May 1941.  Russell Lee, photographer.  Library of Congress.

     This one involved a 15-year feud about a hot water heater. (We are not kidding.) In essence, there were some mediation settlement agreements reached between the homeowners and housing co-op about the water heater in one housing coop unit, with homeowners accepting $50,000 in settlement at one point under a mediation settlement agreement. Homeowners kept quarreling after the fact, all to their detriment. Co-op finally won a contractual fee award of $75,046.53 under one of the settlement agreements, a determination affirmed on appeal. After all, homeowners got $50,000 in past, kept warring, and eventually got tagged for violating one of the mediation settlement agreements when co-op decided to draw the line/enforce it/had enough. The gift can’t just keep giving, under the circumstances . . . said the DCA, more eloquently than we.

Turner v. Layton, Case Nos. B241809/B246400 (2d Dist., Div. 6 Dec. 31, 2013) (Unpublished) — Arbitration.

     In this one, defendant obtained a post-arbitration fees/costs award in a home remodel dispute. The fee/award costs broke down this way: $114,728.20 in fees and $89,902.99 in costs, all arising from a compensatory recovery of $20,833. (Yep, we think this is a correct compensatory tally, based on facts stated in the opinion.) The trial court even added on another $6,615 for post-arbitration confirmation fees. Well, all of this was sustained on appeal. Even though the appellate court agreed that an arbitrator cannot correct substantive errors on a reconsideration motion to the arbitrator (something we can debate upon, actually), there was no error because everyone acquiesced to the reconsideration so that it was invited error. Fee/costs awards affirmed.

Scroll to Top