First District, Division Four and Second District, Division Two Uphold Two Fee Awards in Favor of HOAs. One of the themes that emerges from our review of appellate decisions is how staggering and financially ruinous litigation can be if a litigant is on the short end of the “prevailing party” determination stick. Although sometimes […]
Seller Hit With Fees In a Water Accumulation Concealment Case; Neighbors Obtain Fees Against Neighbors In Tree Obstruction View Case. In these interesting financial times, we find that real estate disputes still fester and produce interesting posts on attorney’s fees issues. The next two cases do not disappoint, originating from our local Santa Ana
Fourth District, Division Three Determines That Thrust of Lawsuit Was Not CC&R Enforcement and Lower Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion In Finding No One Was the Prevailing Party For Purposes of a Fee Award. Plaintiff and defendants are next-door neighbors in a South Orange County upscale residential common area project subject to CC&Rs.
Fourth District, Division Three Remands $522,216 Fee Award For Recalculation, Rebuffs Homeowners’ Attempt to Have Lower Court Ignore Overbilling/Inefficiency Reductions, and Refuses To Allow Award of Nonstatutory Costs. Palm trees are certainly a common vista around Southern California. They also generate frequent litigation in common interest developments, where homeowners battle each other or the
Court of Appeal Affirms Denial of Fee Request under Civil Code section 1354. Section 1354 of the Davis-Sterling Common Interest Development Act, Civil Code section 1354(d), provides that the prevailing party shall be awarded attorney’s fees in an action to enforce the governing documents (usually, CC&Rs). Because the statute contains no
Fourth District, Division Three Sustains Fee Award Against Nonvictorious Homeowner Under Civil Code section 1354(c). Civil Code section 1354(c) provides: “In an action to enforce the governing documents [such as homeowner association CC&Rs], the prevailing party shall be awarded reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.” Because statutory provisions present issues of law
Second District, Division Eight Certifies HOA Association Opinion In The Churchill Condominium Assn. For Publication. In our July 24, 2008 post, we discussed Ritter & Ritter, Inc. v. The Churchill Condominium Assn., a 2-1 Second District, Division Eight decision with a dissent by Justice Rubin. The decision was unpublished at the
Second District, Division Eight Affirms Award in a Sharply Divided 2-1 Panel on the Fee Award Issues. This next profiled case can only be described as … a doozy! In 1998-1999, brother and sister (the eventual plaintiffs) bought two adjoining units in a Westwood 13-story condominium building
Second District Affirms Fee Award and Clarifies That Frivolousness Findings Do Not Have to be Prolix in Nature. If a plaintiff defeats an anti-SLAPP motion determined to be frivolous, the plaintiff must be awarded attorneys under the anti-SLAPP statute. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16(c).) Frivolousness requires a finding that the anti-SLAPP
Fourth District, Division 3 Sanctions Losing In Pro Per Plaintiff By Affirming $40,000 Attorney’s Fees Award. Previously, an in pro per litigant filed an anti-SLAPP motion to strike a fraudulent transfer complaint by an opponent. (See Code Civ. Proc., §425.16 [anti-SLAPP statute].) In pro per lost the motion, and the trial
