Fee Basis Existed and Fees Were Reasonable Given HOA’s Vigorous Litigation In The Matter. Homeowner and HOA disputes are generally contentious and vigorous in nature; the problem is that the winner oft times “gets the spoils,” meaning a large fee recovery even for a victory that is maybe not that major. The […]
$156,614.47 Fee Recovery Went POOF! On Appeal. Wasserman v. Ketelhut, Case No. B258642 (2d Dist., Div. 6 Dec. 1, 2015) (unpublished) is an interesting common interest development case where multiple plaintiffs were fighting defendants over various CC&R governing document claims about defendants operating a vineyard which encroached on certain CID common areas. (BLOG
Appellate Court Found No Basis Under HOA Or Section 1717, But Did Affirm The Small Award Not Challenged By The Other Side—Chastising Defendants For Their Realistic Assessment This Was A Small Claims Matter Undeserving Of Large Fees, But Then Requesting $675,000. We have to say that our California intermediate appellate courts get interesting
$89,387.50 Was Fee Recovery, With Trial Court Correctly Apportioning After Passage Of City Resolution. Although technically not a HOA case, we post under this category because it involved an adjacent property owner in the City of Palm Desert suing another neighbor for having noncompliant construction plans under the HOA’s CC&Rs. The
6th DCA Reverses Lower Court Denial Of Pre-Litigation Fees Based On ADR Statutory Provision. In Rice v. Rancho Palm Grande Homeowners Assn., Case No. H038763 (6th Dist. Sept. 1, 2015) (unpublished), HOA defeated a homeowner’s assessment challenge under the governing CC&Rs and the Davis-Stirling Act fee-shifting provision (Civil Code former section 1354(c)). The
Plaintiff Prevailed On Practical Level, Although Trial Judge Found It “Was Close.” This next one recalls to mind the quote “close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades.” Although finding the prevailing party issue to be closed, the prevailing party prevailed enough to garner $104,718.80 in attorney’s fees and additional costs in
Plaintiffs Sought To Create Precedence, Litigated Vigorously, Should Have To Bear The Fee Tab. This one is truly frightening and shows why fee shifting is a potential game changer in litigation. Plaintiffs were condo owners who also engaged in short term renting, deciding to challenge enforcement of certain HOA regulations imposing fees
Civil Code Former Section 1354(c) Fee-Shifting Provision At Issue—Mutuality Principles Applied to Insure “Prevailing Party” Obtains Fees. The California Supreme Court has extended application of mutuality principles outside of Civil Code section 1717 to prevailing homeowner defendants in common interest development (CID) enforcement suits brought by non-prevailing homeowner associations in Tract 19051 Homeowners
All This Over Short-Term Rental Regulations Involving A Little Over $10,000 In Total Delinquencies. This next case is somewhat frightening for all litigants and practitioners—no matter what substantive areas you practice in. It does echo our “Mission Statement,” which we have referenced many times but will not boar our steady readers with again.
$164,474.50 Fee Recovery Denial Affirmed On Appeal. Patterson v. Sherwood Valley Homeowners Assn., Case No. B254446 (2d Dist., Div. 6 Jan. 6, 2014) (unpublished) demonstrates that the theory of the case may well determine whether fee entitlement for or against a party is in order. In this one, HOA won a tree
