Fourth District, Division 1 Finds Homeowner Did Not Prevail, But HOA Was Entitled to Fee Recovery.
Without meaning to be preachy, we have on numerous occasions—in line with our Mission Statement—reminded readers that litigation happiness or sadness often times boils down to who recovers or who gets socked with fees at the end of an action. That end result is very pronounced in homeowner-HOA disputes, where substantial fees are frequently awarded in favor of the winning side. The next decision is yet another illustration of how fee recovery ends up in these types of disputes.
In Woodbury v. Seacrest Villas Homeowners Assn., Case No. D053466 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Nov. 12, 2009) (unpublished), plaintiff sued HOA, its president, and its directors for breach of duty under the CC&Rs to maintain the common areas of the condo project. She lost after the trial court determined some of her claims were minor, some were unfounded, and others concerned methods of repair that were ones within the discretion of the HOA. Later, the trial court granted defendants recovery of $316,106.99 in attorney’s fees as well as $8,802.43 in routine costs.
Plaintiff did not overturn these awards on appeal.
Suits based on CC&Rs are “on the contract” under Civil Code section 1717 for purposes of determining a prevailing party. (Treo@Kettner Homeowners Assn. v. Superior Court, 166 Cal.App.4th 1055, 1066 (2008).) After carefully reviewing all plaintiff’s claims, the appellate court agreed that defendants prevailed, because plaintiff did not gain her objectives given that the repairs were found to have been made, were too inconsequential in nature, or the HOA’s repair methods (using a handyman) were appropriate even though plaintiff wanted the use of a licensed contractor. Plaintiff also did not obtain her destructive testing relief, with the HOA voluntarily making repairs that were not motivated by plaintiff’s action. Plaintiff did not obtain her litigation objectives; “her action was ‘a vague conglomeration of shifting issues,’ and ‘[i]t can be argued that [she] want[ed] her own private CC&Rs that essentially required[d] the board to never say no to anything she wants.’” (Slip Opn., p. 23.) Under the circumstances, the appellate panel did not believe there was any inequity in requiring her to pay the HOA’s fees and other costs.
So, as the prelude to ABC’s “Wide World of Sports” used to say, plaintiff suffered “the agony of defeat.” See video of Vinko Bogataj below.