$102,547.50 Was The Award, With No Apportionment Necessary And With It Being Reasonable In Nature.
LaPay v. The Fairways Homeowner’s Assn., Case No. E082827 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Jan. 23, 2026) (unpublished) is a case showing how an HOA acted reasonably in making fire-related damage repairs when it could not locate an owner and demonstrating how attorney’s fees will be awarded to the HOA/condominium manager making good decisions like the ones in this matter.
In this one, original trustor of a trust and condo owner went missing in action following a fire in an adjacent condo that resulted in damage to his unit. The HOA and condo manager supervised events related to the fire-related repairs. The HOA sent missing condo owner notices on the need to make repairs to his condo and eventually helped obtain insurance coverage for repairs to owner’s condo and to the adjacent unit, but received no response – ultimately issuing right to entry letters prior to making the fire-related repairs. Eventually, due to owner’s mental incapacity, owner’s sister was appointed as replacement trustee and sold the condo. Afterward, based on HOA’s entry into owner’s condo to make repairs, owner’s sister sued HOA and condo manager for violating HOA governing documents and related tort claims (such as trespass and conversion). The lower court granted summary judgment to defendants, followed later by a grant of attorney’s fees under Civil Code section 1717 (based on the HOA governing document’s fees clause). HOA/condo manager, represented by the same firm, requested fees of $113,572, but the lower court made reductions for: (1) paralegal hourly rates which were too high; (2) clerical work; and (3) supplemental fee briefing. It rejected arguments that there was double billing for work between HOA and the condo manager. The adjusted lodestar fee award was $102,547.50
The merits and fee rulings were affirmed on appeal. No apportionment was needed between work on all claims or work for different defendants, because the work was intertwined. The fee award also was no abuse of discretion, given the trial court’s lodestar reductions.