Cases: Homeowner Associations – Page 10

Homeowner Association/Prevailing Party: $101,803.15 To Prevailing HOA Affirmed On Appeal Where Lower Court Found HOA Could Fine For Short-Term Vacation Rental Activities But Awarded Fairly Small Fines

April 21, 2016

Prevailing Party Under Davis-Stirling Act Is A Pragmatic Inquiry, With Fees Mandatory If Prevailing Status Is Properly Made. Almanor Lakeside Villas Owners Assn. v. Carson, Case No. H041030 (6th Dist. Apr. 19, 2016) (published) involves a $101,803.15 fees/costs award to a prevailing homeowner association against homeowners who were found to have violated short-term

Homeowner Associations/Prevailing Party: Mixed Results Meant Remand Was Necessary

March 5, 2016

However, One Party Did Clearly Prevail, But Got No More On Appeal. Both trial and appellate courts are faced with situations where some parties prevail to some extent, but then have to determine if one or more truly did prevail on a convincing basis. In Marina Pacifica Homeowners Assn. v. So. Cal.

Homeowner Association: $147,595 Fee Award To Plaintiffs Voiding HOA Director Election Upheld On Appeal

Cases: Homeowner Associations

January 17, 2016

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

Equities, Homeowner Association, Prevailing Party: Fee Recovery Against Two Voluntarily Dismissing Plaintiffs, Where Other Plaintiffs Still Fighting, Was Abuse Of Discretion Under The Circumstances

Cases: Equity, Cases: Homeowner Associations, Cases: Prevailing Party

December 1, 2015

$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 Wasserman v. Ketelhut, Case No. B258642 (2d Dist., Div. 6 Dec. 1, 2015) (unpublished) is an interesting common interest development case where multiple plaintiffs were fighting defendants over various CC&R governing document claims about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

Homeowner Associations/Reasonableness Of Fees/Section 1717: Prevailing Defendants Get $525 In Fees, Not The Requested $675,000

Cases: Homeowner Associations, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

October 25, 2015

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

Homeowner Associations: Plaintiff Adjacent Owner Losing Challenge To Neighbor’s Plans Based On CC&Rs Upon Demurrer Properly Assessed With Fees

Cases: Homeowner Associations

September 12, 2015

$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

Homeowner Associations: Nonprevailing Homeowner Liable For Prevailing HOA’s Pre-Litigation As Well As Litigation Fees And Costs Under CC&Rs/Davis-Sitrling Act

Cases: Homeowner Associations

September 4, 2015

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

Homeowner Associations, Prevailing Party: Plaintiff Neighbor Successfully Suing For Coronado Cays CC&R Violations In Replacement Dock Construction Garners $104,718.80 In Attorney’s Fees/Costs

Cases: Homeowner Associations, Cases: Prevailing Party

June 19, 2015

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

Homeowner Association: $1.2 Million Fee Award Against Homeowners/Short Renting Landlords Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Homeowner Associations

March 25, 2015

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

Homeowner Associations: Defendant Homeowner Prevailing In Plaintiff HOA’s Common Interest Development Enforcement Suit Involving Governing Documents Entitled To Fees Even If No Valid CID/Governing Document Were Proven To Exist

Cases: Homeowner Associations

March 7, 2015

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