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 The decision was unpublished at the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
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
Fourth District, Division One San Diego Appellate Court Affirms $127,000 Trial Costs/Fee Award Against Losing Homeowner—And Assesses Appellate Costs Against the Homeowner. As Voltaire has been cited as saying, “I have only been ruined twice in my life. Once, when I sued and won. The other, when I sued and lost.”
