Under Civil Code section 1354, the fee-shifting provisions relating to CC&R disputes between homeowners and HOAs, the prevailing party is determined based on who practically won–identical to the standard under Civil Code section 1717. In Pope v. Oaks of Calabasas HOA, Case No. B237442 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Feb. 13, 2013) (unpublished), […]
Court of Appeal, Facing Some Gnarly Procedural Issues, Finds Trial Court Denial Was Correct. Gunn v. Superior Court (Mai Kai Community Assn.), Case No. G046989 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Feb. 7, 2013) (unpublished) was a situation where an HOA voluntarily dismissed without prejudice an action after a homeowner early on relented and allowed
If there is one area where acrimony is evident, it is homeowner/neighbor/HOA battles. The problem, in line with our Mission Statement, is that the fee recovery can be crushing, far outweighing the probable importance of the litigation. That is what happened in Mestler v. Johnson, Case No. D058869 (4th Dist., Div. 1
Plaintiff in Mariani v. Harbor Pointe Owners’ Assn., Case No. A130360 (1st Dist., Div. 4 Jan. 24, 2013) (unpublished) was miffed at a $36,151 fee award under Civil Code section 1354 after losing a homeowner voting controversy. Homeowner appealed, arguing that the HOA was not enforcing CC&Rs, but only a promise not in
Entitlement, Apportionment, and Amount Challenges Rejected. In Sinclair v. Katakis, Case No. F060497 (5th Dist. Jan. 23, 2013) (unpublished), $750,000 in attorney’s fees (out of a requested $1.2 million) and $33,141.67 in costs were awarded against defendants in a battle involving CC&Rs as well as notes and deeds of trust with contractual fee
Partial Publication Order Issued on January 16, 2013. In our December 19, 2012 post, we discussed Grossman v. Park Fort Washington, an unpublished Fifth District decision holding in a HOA-homeowner battle, among other things, that fees expended by a prevailing party on mandatory ADR efforts in these types of disputes are recoverable. We
Trial Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion In Awarding All Requested Fees But 10 Hours On Unsuccessful Matters. Homeowners association, in this one, must have felt the sting of statutory fee-shifting provisions which allowed the property owners to recover $112,665 in fees based on winning a dispute over the correct interpretation of CC&Rs.
In Mankowski v La Cumbre Owners Assn., Inc., Case No. B236025 (2d Dist., Div. 6 Nov. 13, 2012) (unpublished), plaintiff townhouse owner was apparently really mad that the trial court found no one prevailed in her slander of title/declaratory relief action over the characterization of a driveway after her sister contributed to her
$8,744.50 Fee Award Affirmed on Appeal. The underlying dispute was a homeowner-homeowner association (HOA) dispute in which defendants represented HOA but homeowner sued the HOA attorneys for legal malpractice. Defendants won a SLAPP motion and were awarded $8,744.50. Homeowner appealed the adverse result in Kumar v. Robert E. Weiss Inc., Case No.
May Have Some Repercussions for Construction Defect Litigation Costs and Homeowner/HOA Fee Recovery. On August 16, 2012, our state supreme court issued its opinion in Pinnacle Museum Tower Assn. v. Pinnacle Market Development, Case No. S186149 (Cal. Sup. Ct. Aug.16, 2012). The high court found that CC&Rs mandating arbitration between developers and homeowner associations
