Second District, Division 7 Affirms Award Under Civil Code Section 1354 Despite Plaintiffs’ Lack of Standing.
Here is one with a twist: plaintiffs (who are the daughter and son-in-law of actual property owners) unsuccessfully sued a homeowners association (HOA) for, among other things, enforcement of the CC&Rs. The trial court ultimately concluded that plaintiffs did not have standing because the claims they sued upon were not assignable by the parents/in-laws under general assignment law or the Davis-Stirling Act. The lower court also awarded HOA $29,371.39 in attorney’s fees under Civil Code section 1354(c) and Civil Code section 1717, as against plaintiffs, based upon their opponents having lost the CC&R claims. Plaintiffs appealed. Question: win or lose? (50/50 chance).
Answer: Plaintiffs lost.
In Martin v. Bridgeport Community Assn., Case No. B206686 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Apr. 7, 2009) (unpublished), the appellate court relied on precedent establishing that the mandatory fee shifting provision of Civil Code section 1354(c) applies even where a plaintiff brings an action to enforce governing CC&Rs and is unsuccessful based on a lack of standing. (See Farber v. Bay View Terrace Homeowners Assn., 141 Cal.App.4th 1007, 1014 (2006).)