$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 Lastavich v. Nob Hills Homeowners Assn., Case No. D075466 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Dec. 2, 2020) (unpublished) is an illustration of how this panned out in a real case.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 Kashani v. Wilshire House Assn., Case No. B296976 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Oct. 28, 2020) (unpublished) involved a HOA-homeowner dispute involving a right of first refusal battle to bid on a particular condo unit, with the HOA winning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 In Gallian v. Gragnano, Case No. G057198 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Sept. 15, 2020) (unpublished), HOA sued a homeowner for architectural violations under the CC&Rs, which prompted homeowner to crossclaim against the board members for indemnification,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 May 6, 2020) (unpublished) got SLAPPed and then failed to file an opposition to a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.
Gravamen Of Plaintiff’s Complaint Was On Enforceability Of The Governing Documents. In Alexander v. Singletary, Case No. D075943 (4th Dist., Div. 1 January 21, 2020) (unpublished), one of five homeowners in a common interest development unsuccessfully sought judicial declaration that the governing documents were unenforceable as to him, and for partition from the
Plaintiff’s Unsuccessful Action Was Founded On CC&Rs Rights, Not Just Solely Sounding In Tort; HOA; Directors Had Sought $322,840 In Fees. HOA and HOA directors were awarded $220,000 in attorney’s fees against an unsuccessful plaintiff bringing a suit to challenge HOA’s policies and CC&Rs about parking and the permitting process, as well as enforcement
Gravamen of Plaintiffs’ Action Was Based On Governing CC&Rs Which Made Defendant Prevailing Party For Attorneys’ Fees Purposes When She Defeated The Action Through Demurrers And Plaintiffs’ Voluntary Dismissal. We first discussed our next case – Durack v. Wang, Case No. B293597 (2d Dist., Div. 7 November 18, 2019) (unpublished) – in a
Defendant HOA’s Breach Of Owner/Developer’s Valid Contractual Access Rights Was The Common Core Involved In The Causes Of Action, So Apportionment Of Fees Not Required. In Millennium-Diamond Road Partners v. Diamond Bar etc., Case No. B285539 (2nd Dist., Div. 3 Sept. 24, 2019) (unpublished), Owner/Developer Millennium sued HOA when it revoked Millennium’s access
Numerous Civil Code and CCP Provisions, As Well Case Law, Summarized By The Firm On Its Website. We would like to thank Adams Stirling, a Los Angeles law firm specializing in HOA issues, for its excellent summary of HOA and Davis-Stirling Act fees issues and case law, which we post verbatim below and which
