Homeowner Associations: Complaint Allegations And Discovery Responses Revealed That Losing Plaintiffs’ Claims Were Based Partially On CC&Rs

This Meant That Fees Were Recoverable By The HOA Under The Davis-Stirling Act Fee Shifting Provision.

               In Smith v. Bridle Path Homeowners Association, Inc., Case No. B331987 (2d Dist., Div. 6 May 21, 2025) (unpublished), plaintiffs owning homes in a Simi Valley planned equestrian community sued an HOA for deciding to not maintain certain parkways and slopes adjacent to a bridle path and other common areas.  HOA won the case because the CC&Rs placed the maintenance responsibilities on individual homeowners.  The lower could then awarded HOA attorney’s fees of $174,984.90 under the Davis-Stirling fee shifting provision because the claims were based at least in part on the CC&Rs.

               The 2/6 DCA affirmed the fee award.  Both the allegations of the Complaint and plaintiffs’ discovery responses established the claims were based in part on the CC&Rs, which triggered fee shifting.  (See Civ. Code, § 5975(c); LNSU #1, LLC v. Alta Del Mar Coastal Collection Community Assn., 94 Cal.App.5^th 1050, 1082 (2023).)  Because plaintiffs’ claims related to the CC&Rs, there was no requirement to apportion between theories advanced at a trial where plaintiff lost.