Cases: Homeowner Associations

HOA Dispute: No Prevailing Party Found In Upscale Homeowner Dispute Where One Homeowner Recovered $2,000 In Damages For Fraud

Cases: Homeowner Associations, Cases: Prevailing Party

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. […]

HOA Dispute: Homeowners Win Substantial Fee Award Which Is Reversed and Remanded For Mathematical Calculation Errors

Cases: Homeowner Associations

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

Condominium Owner In Commercial Office Complex Denied An Award of Attorney’s Fees Against Condominium Association

Cases: Homeowner Associations

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

Fifth Time Is Not The Charm For Losing Homeowner: HOA Homeowners Awarded $47,335.72 In Costs And $264,549.60 In Attorney’s Fees

Cases: Homeowner Associations

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

Unpublished Case Gets Published

Cases: Homeowner Associations

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

Brother/Sister Owners Of Adjoining Condominium Units Reap Attorney’s Fees Of $531,159 As Prevailing Parties In An Action Where They Won Damages Of $4,620 And Equitable Relief Requiring Disclosure of A Building Wide Problem.

Cases: Homeowner Associations, Cases: Prevailing Party

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

HOMEOWNER WINS ANTI-SLAPP ATTORNEY’S FEES AWARD BECAUSE HOMEOWNER’S ASSOCIATION BROUGHT FRIVOLOUS MOTION AGAINST HER CLAIMS

Cases: Homeowner Associations, Cases: SLAPP, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

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

In PRO PER APPELLANT LOSES CHALLENGES TO APPELLATE ATTORNEY FEE AWARD FOR BRINGING A FRIVOLOUS APPEAL OF AN ANTI-SLAPP ORDER

Cases: Billing Record Substantiation, Cases: Homeowner Associations, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees, Cases: SLAPP, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes, Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees

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

HOMEOWNER AND HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION BOTH GNASH THEIR TEETH—SANTA ANA COURT OF APPEAL FINDS NO PREVAILING PARTY, WITH EACH SIDE BEARING SUBSTANTIAL ATTORNEYS FEES IN AN IRRIGATION PIPE CONTROVERSY

Cases: Homeowner Associations

Fourth District, Division 3 Affirms Trial Court’s Finding That Neither Homeowner Nor HOA Prevailed for Purposes of Obtaining a Fee or Cost Award.             In a previous post (see May 17, 2008 post), we commented on how homeowner-homeowner association (HOA) disputes can be costly and can be financially devastating to the losing

Scroll to Top