$164,474.50 Fee Recovery Denial Affirmed On Appeal.
Patterson v. Sherwood Valley Homeowners Assn., Case No. B254446 (2d Dist., Div. 6 Jan. 6, 2014) (unpublished) demonstrates that the theory of the case may well determine whether fee entitlement for or against a party is in order.
In this one, HOA won a tree maintenance dispute against a homeowner relating to trees in an adjoining park, governed by different Park CC&Rs versus the HOA CC&Rs of a different ilk. However, homeowner clarified its pleadings to specify the basis for recovery was on the Park CC&Rs. Although HOA prevailed in the dispute, it was disappointed it did not recoup $164,474.50 in attorney’s fees under former Civil Code section 1354(c), now section 5975(c) which allows recovery to HOAs if the suit involves enforcement of governing CC&Rs. The trial judge denied HOA’s request for fees against homeowner.
The winning argument was that homeowner was seeking to enforce Park CC&Rs, not the HOA CC&Rs. Because the HOA CC&Rs were the “governing” CC&Rs under the fee-shifting statute, HOA was properly denied fees as prevailing under the non-implicated HOA CC&Rs. There you go, everyone, legal distinctions make a difference.