Both Civil Code Section 1354 (Now Section 5975) And CC&R Fee Clause Were In Play. Yikes! Talk about a change in fortune based on a prior appeal. Homeowner finally won, obtaining damages and substantial attorney’s fees for hanging in there to the end. In Multani v. Castle Green Homeowners Assn., Case No. […]
However, A Dissenting Justice Would Have Found Fee Entitlement Under CC&Rs And Section 1717. The next case, Shah v. Ross, Case No. B286783 (2d Dist., Div. 5 April 25, 2019) (unpublished), involved a situation where defendants/homeowner neighbors won a tree dispute initiated by fellow plaintiff homeowner. Defendants then sought fees under a CC&Rs fees clause,
HOA Satisfied Prelitigation Efforts To Resolve And Prevailed By Meetings Its Objectives. In Durant Towers Owners Assn. v. Winchester, Case No. B288966 (2d Dist., Div. 8 March 29, 2019) (unpublished), HOA sued defendant condo owner to obtain access to her unit in order to determine if water leakage from her unit was causing damage
Action Was Based On Tort, Not CC&Rs; Fee Clause Did Not Reach Tort Claims Under Section 1717; And Defendants Failed To Apportion Costs As Between Themselves. In the fee area, you must have a solid fee entitlement basis and you usually have to apportion costs where there are several prevailing defendants rather than claim
Condominium Owner Plaintiff Wisely Sought Fees Only For The Claims On Which She Prevailed Against Association The Broadway Hollywood is a 10-story historical building on the corner of Hollywood and Vine. It was constructed in 1927 and originally used as a store. However, the building was abandoned in 1987 and remained vacant for
Summary Judgment Hinged On Voting Rights Language In The Covenants Of The Development The Davis-Stirling Act (Civ. Code section 4000 et seq.) governs the creation and operation of common interest developments, and requires such developments to be managed by a homeowners association, which homeowners are generally mandated to join. In Bertoli v.
Dispute Was Covered Under CC&R’s Fee Provision. In Hunkel v. Gerhardt, Case No. H044753 (6th Dist. March 12, 2019) (unpublished), two neighboring homeowners squared off in a dispute over the placement of a fence by one homeowner group. The defendant homeowners claimed that there was no proper board of directors making a decision on
Lower Court Fee Award And Appellate Fees Were Warranted In Favor OF The HOA. Although we do not know the amount of fees awarded below, the homeowners in Windham at Carmel Mountain Ranch Assn. v. Lacher, Case No. D071799 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Jan. 16, 2019) (unpublished) obviously were dismayed when the lower court
Main Problem Was Failure To Properly Introduce Another Counsel’s Work In Admissible Fashion—Declaration By Later Counsel Did Not Do It. In Eith v. Ketelhut, Case No. B272028 (2d Dist., Div. 6 Dec. 17, 2018) (partially published; fees discussion unpublished), many homeowners got involved in a dispute which hinged on whether a HOA Board of
Mediation Requirement Did Not Apply To HOA-Owner Dispute, Owner Failed To Specifically Identify Objections Fees, And Lower Court Did Award Substantially Reduced Fees From The HOA’s Requests. We have done many posts showing how HOAs or owners can be subject to substantial fee exposure for losing HOA-owner disputes. Seahaus La Jolla Owners Assn. v.
