Gravamen Of Plaintiff’s Complaint Was On Enforceability Of The Governing Documents.
In Alexander v. Singletary, Case No. D075943 (4th Dist., Div. 1 January 21, 2020) (unpublished), one of five homeowners in a common interest development unsuccessfully sought judicial declaration that the governing documents were unenforceable as to him, and for partition from the development.
As prevailing defendants, the other four homeowners moved for section 5975(c) (Davis-Stirling Act fee-shifting provision) attorneys’ fees. The lower court denied – concluding Plaintiff’s action did not seek “to enforce” the governing documents.
Two of the four defendants appealed, and the 4/1 DCA reversed – finding Plaintiff’s entire action revolved around the enforceability of the governing documents within the meaning of section 5975(c), and that Plaintiff could not avoid the fee provision simply because he phrased his complaint to seek a finding that the governing documents are “unenforceable.”
The 4/1 DCA’s reversal applied only to the two defendants who appealed, with judgment considered final as to the two non-appealing defendants.