A Broad By-Law Fees/Cost Clause, The Davis-Stirling Act, And JAMS Cost Provision Amply Justified The Arbitration Award Which Was Confirmed As A Judgment.
The next post illustrates a familiar ending story in many homeowner-HOA disputes, whether brough in court or in arbitration: a prevailing party will face the prospect of obtaining substantial recoupment of attorney’s fees and costs given how contentious these matters often area if claims arose under Governing Documents or the Davis-Stirling Act.
That is what happened in Key v. Hidden Hills Community Assn., Case No. B339444 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Feb. 27, 2026) (unpublished). Homeowner initiated a mandate petition in court against HOA for numerous alleged Governing Documents violations. Based on a broad by-law requiring mandatory arbitration (which also had a broad attorney’s fees and costs language), HOA successfully moved to compel arbitration, with the parties stipulating that all of homeowner’s claims would be decided by the arbitrator. The arbitrator found in HOA’s favor on all of homeowner’s claims, subsequently awarding prevailing party fees to HOA on four out of six claims as well as awarding routine costs, including the arbitrator’s fees—the award was $254,815.53 in total, $206,351.25 being fees and $48,464.28 being costs. The superior court confirmed the award, adding another $16,500 in post-arbitration fees and $60 in costs. Homeowner appealed, but to no avail.
Homeowner argued that there was no fee entitlement for the four claims on which fees were awarded. Not so, said the appellate court. Nothing in the Davis-Stirling Act, which has a voluntary arbitration procedure, prevents the parties—based on the by-laws—to agree to mandatory binding arbitration. There was no conflict between the Act and the by-laws with respect to remedies. (Incidentally, the opinion has a nice summary of Davis-Stirling Act fee provisions, citing Artus v. Gramercy Towers Condominium Assn., 19 Cal.App.5th 925, 937-938 (2018).) The arbitrator properly did not award fees on two claims, finding no fee entitlement.
Homeowner argued that she prevailed because, on one claim, she was opposing a neighbor’s attempt to trespass or obtain an easement on her property to make access better. However, because neighbor voluntarily abandoned the project, she did not prevail vis-à-vis the HOA. However, HOA did prevail on four claims, with homeowner’s own pleadings demonstrating that she was seeking relief under the Governing HOA Documents.
With respect to costs, homeowner argued that there needed to a frivolity finding as a condition of HOA receiving a costs award. This argument was found unpersuasive. Except for one claim involving an open meeting violation challenge (which the arbitrator did find was frivolous for fee award purposes), the other Davis-Stirling Act provisions, the by-law provision, and JAMS cost rule (JAMS Rule 24(g)) did not require a frivolity/lack of foundation finding as a predicate to a costs award.