The Result Was That HOA Was Not Entitled To Prevailing Party Attorney’s Fees.
“Prevailing party” determinations, frequently, depend on whether a trial judge believes a litigant truly met its litigation objectives. Generally, if a result is a “mixed” good/bad result, the litigant does not obtain attorney’s fees under a fee-shifting statute. That conclusion resonated and was buttressed by the end result in Pacific Horizon Holdings, LLC v. Meehan, Case No. B336898 (2d Dist., Div. 4 June 2, 2025) (unpublished).
In a sober living dispute where HOA was alleged to block access to sober living tenants, HOA sought damages of $50,000, injunctive relief, and declaratory relief against homeowners. The trial judge did not agree with the CC&R breach and nuisance claims brought by HOA, but she did uphold a declaratory relief claim granting HOA a limited express easement. HOA moved for attorney’s fees of $204,000 as the prevailing party under the Davis-Stirling Act fee-shifting provision, Civ. Code, § 5975(c). No fees were awarded by the lower court.
HOA appealed, but to no avail. The results were truly “mixed,” because HOA did not meet all of its litigation objectives. It did not obtain any damages for CC&R breaches or nuisance, only succeeding in obtaining a judicial declaration of its CC&R rights moving forward. Under these circumstances, the lower court did not abuse its discretion in determining HOA was not a “prevailing party” where results were mixed under the Davis-Stirling fee-shifting statute.