CC&R And Nuisance Claims Were Intertwined, So No Apportionment Required, And Fee Excessive Claims Were Not Supported By Record Citations.
Finley v. Gantz, Case No. D084145 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Feb. 6, 2026) (unpublished) reinforces a message we have refrained in the past: homeowner disputes can be expensive for the losing side, which will allow for substantial fee/costs awards under Civil Code section 1717 (as happened in this) or the Davis-Stirling Act fee shifting provision.
In this one, plaintiffs sued defendant neighbors for a deck/gazebo construction which allegedly obstructed their view under CC&Rs and under a nuisance theory. Defendants defensed them, including a determination that amended CC&Rs were invalid. The lower court granted plaintiffs a total of $615,118.37 in fees and costs under Civil Code section, about a $53,451 decrease from the $661,205.29 “ask” based on some hourly rates of legal professionals being deemed too high.
Plaintiffs’ appeal of the fee/costs award was unsuccessful. Whether under the original or amended CC&Rs (with the latter being declared invalid), the defense win was “on the contract” no matter what CC&Rs were applicable, given it established the amended CC&Rs were invalid. No apportionment was necessary on the public nuisance claims, because they were intertwined with the contractual claims. The defense was entitled for compensation on pre-litigation “lead-up” work. “Fees on fees” are allowable, with the appellate court having a nice discussion of when this is allowable, with citations to several supporting California cases. Finally, given no specific objection to excessiveness was made with bolstering record citations, the argument on fees being exorbitant was forfeited.