Fourth District, Division 1 Expresses Displeasure That Inexpensive Forum Was Not Pursued.
In our category “Cases: Homeowner Associations,” we have discussed cases where HOAs or homeowners prevailed (or neither side prevailed) in disputes involving proper interpretation of CC&Rs—usually involving maintenance, repair, or view protection disputes. Attorney’s fees are usually the ultimate battle, because they usually are authorized under Civil Code section 1717 or 1354(c) (with the court having discretion to award them). Although our next case is one where a homeowner lost, the ending views of the Fourth District, Division 1 provide an important lesson to individuals who want to vindicate their rights against HOAs—if pocketbook is a concern.
Homeowner sued HOA in unlimited jurisdiction superior court over an assessment for maintenance/repair work done on homeowner’s balcony. In Gabriel v. Canyon Haven Homeowners Assn., Case No. D052178 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Jan. 28, 2009) (unpublished), the appellate court affirmed a $1,575 judgment against homeowner and an award of attorney’s fees/costs of over $18,500 ($17,923.50 of which were fees).
Although not challenging the amount of the judgment or fee award, the appellate panel did have some sobering observations for homeowners at the end of the opinion. It noted that small claims court was an option for a dispute over $1,575. Given that no party may be represented by an attorney in small claims court, homeowner could have saved more than $17,000 in HOA’s attorney’s fees plus costs. “While the plaintiff has the right to seek relief in a trial court of unlimited jurisdiction, we must express some frustration that a dispute of such limited financial nature has not only consumed a great amount of trial court resources, but has been so costly to the litigant.” (Slip Opn., at p. 17.)