Suit Did Involve CC&Rs, And Defendant Did Prevail By Being Dismissed, Such That Reversal Means Defendant Condo Owner Will Get Some Fees On Remand.
Fee entitlement and prevailing party determinations often are matters of law, as they were here where the pleadings and facts made a reversal of a fee denial – something which was directed by our local Santa Ana appellate court in Richardson v. Stevenson, Case No. G056112 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Aug. 26, 2019) (unpublished).
Of all things, this was a dispute challenging defendant condo owner’s successful HOA application to convert a window into a door, a decision challenged by another condo owner. Plaintiff sued HOA and defendant for injunctive relief under the Davis-Stirling Act, not the CC&Rs directly (even though the claim arose from the CC&Rs). Defendant condo owner was voluntarily dismissed from the action before trial and three years into the litigation for “tactical” reasons, leaving injunctive-based claims against the HOA. The lower court denied defendant’s request for fees against plaintiff, not believing that plaintiff was suing under CC&Rs and not finding that defendant had prevailed because it was unknown whether the owner could convert window into a door.
The 4/3 DCA, in an opinion authored by Presiding Justice O’Leary, reversed. The first ground for denial did not hold up because the pleading showed that the CC&Rs were the basis for the suit (even though not directly sued upon), such that the Davis-Stirling Act was triggered because the case was a suit based on HOA “governing documents.” Defendant also did prevail on two grounds: (1) he was now a stranger to the case with the dismissal, which meant he achieved an important litigation objective to get out of the dispute; and (2) he prevailed under CCP § 1032(a)(4) which allows contractual attorney’s fees for non-contractual claims such as this suit under the Davis-Stirling Act. (See Honey Baked Hams, Inc. v. Dickens, 37 Cal.App.4th 421, 428 (1995).)