Fourth District, Division 1 Finds Homeowner Did Not Prevail, But HOA Was Entitled to Fee Recovery. Without meaning to be preachy, we have on numerous occasions—in line with our Mission Statement—reminded readers that litigation happiness or sadness often times boils down to who recovers or who gets socked with fees at the end of […]
Presiding Justice Sills Sustains Fee Awards on Behalf of 3-0 Panel. If one is prone to read lots of appellate opinions (as we are), distinctive styles come through by various appellate justices authoring the cases assigned to them. That happens to be the case in the next decision we review—Presiding Justice Sills, the author,
Fourth District, Division 3 Remands for Fee Redetermination in “Acrid Dispute Between Neighbors.” Disputes between homeowner associations and members or neighbors in a common interest subdivision seem to result in overboilings of emotions and (ultimately) litigation resources. Many times, the final result—where both sides seek to recoup hefty attorney’s fees—results in a “wash,” with
Purchase Agreement Fees Clause Did Not Apply Because Plaintiff Was Not A Condo Buyer. One of the first rules of fee entitlement is that you need a contractual or statutory basis to trump the American Rule that each sides bears its own attorney’s fees in a case. That principle sunk the winning defendants’ request
Second District, Seven 7 So Holds Under Civil Code Section 1354(c), But Splinters Badly in the Process. We all know that fundamental access to the courts is more than just rhetoric; it is a bulwark of our whole legal system. This principle took “front and center” importance in the next case, where entitlement to
Second District, Division 7 HOA Decision Is Now on the Books! On April 7, 2009, we reported on the HOA decision of Martin v. Bridgeport Community Association, Inc., Case No. B206686 (2d Dist., Div. 7). At the time, it was unpublished. However, on May 6, 2009, the Court of Appeal certified it for publication.
Second District, Division 7 Issues Two Unpublished Opinions on SLAPP. In our category “SLAPP,” we have explored cases where defendants have been victorious in winning mandatory attorney’s fees awards after prevailing in anti-SLAPP motions. The statutory basis for such fee entitlement is Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16(c). Division 7 of the Second District
Third District Gives Mixed Blessing to Fee Victor. What happens when a fee award is not sustainable on one ground but correct on another? Answer: a remand, with directions to recalculate the award under the proper fee entitlement statute. The next case—Klamath River Development Co. v. Preston, Case Nos. C054002 & C055369 (3d
Second District, Division 7 Affirms Award Under Civil Code Section 1354 Despite Plaintiffs’ Lack of Standing. Here is one with a twist: plaintiffs (who are the daughter and son-in-law of actual property owners) unsuccessfully sued a homeowners association (HOA) for, among other things, enforcement of the CC&Rs. The trial court ultimately concluded that plaintiffs
Recent Los Angeles Time Article Explores the Subject. Does a homeowner in a common interest residential subdivision project have the right to review attorney invoices for services rendered to a homeowners association? You betcha. Smith v. Laguna Sur Village Community Assn., 79 Cal.App.4th 641 (2000) so held. For a nice, short article
