Parties’ Inability To Mediate Was A Discretionary Factor To Weigh In The Fee Calculus. HOA, in Country Glen Oak Park Homeowners Assn. v. Garrett, Case No. B303220 (2d Dist., Div. 6 July 6, 2021) (unpublished), won a case to require removal of a pool equipment encroachment by homeowners as well as $820 in compensatory […]
Plaintiffs Dismissed Their Action Only After Achieving Their Main Litigation Objective. In Champir v. Fairbanks Ranch Assn., Case No. D077384 (4th Dist., Div. 1 June 22, 2021) (unpublished), plaintiffs sued homeowners’ association for breach of the CCR’s stemming from association’s decision to install traffic lights at a location not approved by a majority of
HOA View Disputes Can Be Costly. Under this category, we have indicated that fee awards can be costly for homeowners and homeowner associations/directors/property managers/neighboring homeowners caught in the middle of “view protection” disputes. The next case is yet another example of that. In Davis v. Irvine Terrace Community Assn., Case Nos. G057682/G058266 (4th
$154,744 In Fees Was Requested. One Ford Road Homeowners Assn. v. Johnson, Case No. G058269 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Dec. 17, 2020) (unpublished), is just a reminder about how expensive HOA/homeowners disputes can be. Here, HOA won a CC&R dispute which was reversed on appeal as a matter of law. That resulted in an
The Davis-Stirling Act Fee-Shifting Provision, Section 5975(c), Mandates The Award Of Fees To The Prevailing Party With The Trial Court's Only Discretion Being To Determine The Reasonable Amount Of Fees. Hope Ranch Park Homes Assoc. v. Rubin, Case No. B299932 (2d Dist., Div. 6 December 14, 2020) (unpublished) involved a $30,600 penalty assessed against
$313,721 Was The Fee Order Request. We have many times indicated that HOA-homeowner disputes can be expensive as far as fee-shifting is concerned. Lastavich v. Nob Hills Homeowners Assn., Case No. D075466 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Dec. 2, 2020) (unpublished) is an illustration of how this panned out in a real case. There,
Good Pointer On Appealability—Separately Appeal § 998 Shifting Award As a Postjudgment Award, Or Be Damned! Kashani v. Wilshire House Assn., Case No. B296976 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Oct. 28, 2020) (unpublished) involved a HOA-homeowner dispute involving a right of first refusal battle to bid on a particular condo unit, with the HOA winning
Settlement Misconception By The Parties Allowed Dismissed Board Members To Seek Fees. In Gallian v. Gragnano, Case No. G057198 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Sept. 15, 2020) (unpublished), HOA sued a homeowner for architectural violations under the CC&Rs, which prompted homeowner to crossclaim against the board members for indemnification, fault apportionment, and declaratory relief. The
Fifth District Did Not Have To Decide If Indigency Of Plaintiff, An Argument Not Raised Before The Trial Judge, Could Justify A Fee Reduction Under SLAPP Fee Statute. The plaintiff/appellant in Cruz v. Abdelaziz, Case No. F077506 (5th Dist. May 6, 2020) (unpublished) got SLAPPed and then failed to file an opposition to a
HOA Interpretation Of Palm Tree View Policies Was Correct, Such That It Was The Prevailing Party. Over the years, because a lot of us live in common interest developments, we are used to seeing homeowner association fights with homeowners, many occurring based on view restriction or tree limitations—generating plenty of disputes by both sides.
