More Generalized H&S Code Section 17984 Did Not Trump More Specific, Recently Enacted Statute, With Sisters Being The Parties Obtaining Their Specific Litigation Objectives Although The County Did Somewhat Prevail On More Tangential Issues.
In County of Del Norte v. Britt, Case No. A173145 (1st Dist., Div. 3 June 11, 2026) (partially published; fee discussion published), County filed a receivership proceeding to abate State Housing Law violations under the Health & Safety Code against a property owner who died intestate, with his sisters added as named defendants even though no estate was administered. The lower court appointed a receiver to address the violations, which were completed and with the receiver seeking to recover certain County/receiver expenses against the sisters. The lower court refused to award these expenses against sisters, who then moved to recover attorney’s fees and costs as prevailing parties under Health & Safety Code section 17980.7(c)(11), which did apply to the receivership proceeding. The lower court refused this request, based on a more general, earlier-enacted statute—Health & Safety Code section 17984 which did not visit this liability on municipalities.
The appellate court reversed. It had to reconcile two conflicting statutes, ultimately concluding that section 17980.7(c)(11) trumped section 17984, which was more general and enacted earlier in time. The specific, later-enacted statute was governing. Although County prevailed (by getting abatement) and sisters prevailed (by avoiding liability for expenses), the appellate court concluded that there could be more than one prevailing party, but sisters were the paramount prevailing parties because they escaped from having to pay expenses to either County or the receiver. So, the matter was reversed and remanded to award sisters their reasonable attorney’s fees and costs under the more specific Health & Safety Code provision.