HOA Was Not Required To Submit To Alternative Dispute Resolution Before Filing Its Complaint Based On The Monetary Damages Claimed.
After performing unauthorized modification and demolition work, Defendant homeowners in Tennis Villas at Monarch Beach Homeowners Assn. v. Ure, Case Nos. G063452/G063954 (4th Dist., Div. 3 October 21, 2025) (unpublished) were sued by their HOA under four causes of action, including breach of the CC&Rs. Defendants cross-complained – based on the HOA’s denial of Defendants’ architectural application for modifications to the property they had submitted to the HOA through their landlord when they were tenants, and premised on duties owed to them by the HOA under the governing docs.
The lower court found the HOA proved three out of the four claims, and ordered Defendants to restore the property to its condition prior to their unapproved modifications and demolition work. Additionally, the lower court found that Defendants lacked standing as to all of their claims because they were not owners at the time the HOA denied their application. Afterward, the lower court approved $401,918.50 of the HOA’s $552,252.68 fees motion, and $21,029.23 out of the $123,720.08 requested through the HOA’s costs memorandum. Defendants appealed the trial court’s finding they lacked standing, along with the fees and costs awards.
The 4/3 DCA, in an opinion authored by Justice Delaney, affirmed. Citing Martin v. Bridgeport Community Assn., Inc. (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 1024, the appellate panel found that ownership is a prerequisite to standing to assert claims for violations of the HOA governing documents or the Davis-Stirling Act. Defendants neither owned, nor were they in escrow to purchase, the property at the time their application was submitted and denied. As to the fees and costs award, the 4/3 DCA found unavailing Defendants’ argument that the awards had to be reversed because the HOA allegedly refused to participate in alternative dispute resolution (“ADR”) before filing its complaint. First, Civ. Code § 5930(a), requiring parties to submit to ADR before filing an enforcement action, was inapplicable because the monetary damages claim exceeded the limits set forth under Code Civ. Proc. §§ 116.220 and 116.221. (Civ. Code § 5930(b).) Further, because section 5930 did not apply in this case, section 5960 – which allows a trial court, in determining an attorney’s fees award, to determine whether a party’s refusal to participate in ADR was reasonable – did not apply.