Entitlement and Breach Were Established.
Well, whether the Holidays or not, neighborhood disputes in common area developments always produce interesting results–often times with someone bearing the sting of fees as the losing parties or both parties walking away after incurring lots of fees. The former was the case in Toler v. LeFevre, Case No. A130010 (1st Dist., Div. 4 Dec. 6, 2011) (unpublished).
There, neighboring litigants in a common area development located in American Canyon, CA entered into a settlement agreement about the proper positioning of a surveillance camera by plaintiff after defendants alleged in a related action that plaintiff could view directly into private and common areas of the development. The settlement agreement required shielding of the camera, and contained a fees clause indicating that previously-filed fee motions by defendants could be reinstated if plaintiff materially breached the settlement agreement.
Not long after the settlement was reached, defendants claimed that there was a material breach in not shielding the camera by plaintiff, which led to protracted proceedings to establish what was what. Eventually, the trial court established that there was a material breach of the settlement by plaintiff, awarding defendants $20,000 in attorney’s fees under Civil Code section 1354(a) [allowing for recovery of fees in CC&Rs enforcement disputes].
The Court of Appeal affirmed, after finding that there was substantial evidence supporting plaintiff’s breach. Plaintiff did not dispute entitlement, but only that there was no breach. With the breach being established, the fee award was affirmed on appeal.
BLOG UNDERVIEW–Where is American Canyon? Looks like it is south Napa County, and was formerly known as Napa Junction–part of the San Francisco Bay area.
