Block Billing Per Se Will Not Tank a Fee Request.
Under our category "Homeowner Associations," we have reviewed numerous decisions where homeowners or HOAs feel the sting of "victory or defeat," even if ABC’s famous "World of Sports" mantra was not directly in play. Well, we have another one to share with you—where the homeowner got stung with bearing hefty fees.
Another Mantra: Allen Ginsberg chants Hare Krishna
Lakeshore View Homeowners’ Assn. v. Tu, Case No. A123298 (1st Dist., Div. 1 Aug. 17, 2010) (unpublished) was a case where defendant homeowner lost a case against a HOA, even though a partial set-off was granted. The net judgment to HOA was $23,584.68, after the set-off of $4,000 in homeowner’s favor. Later, HOA filed to recoup attorney’s fees of $109,513, but the trial judge awarded fees of $65,707.80. Homeowner appealed, contesting only the amount of the fee award.
The fee award was upheld on appeal.
Homeowner did not take issue with the claimed hourly rates or did not identify any tasks that were improperly billed. Rather, the gist of the appeal was that the award was "almost three times" the judgment. That hardly demonstrated an abuse of discretion, because the actual award showed that the trial judge apportioned out work that was not properly awardable and reflected the fact HOA was not 100% successful.
Homeowner also argued that the fee reduction should have been more because HOA’s attorneys sometimes "block billed." The appellate panel observed that homeowner "cites no authority that ‘block billing’ is legally insufficient to support a fee award." (Slip Opn., p. 11.) However, the actual 20% reduction for block billing was more than sufficient. (BLOG OBSERVATION—See our category "Substantiation of Fee Requests" and search for block billing to obtain earlier discussion on this important issue, which counsels against this type of practice if you want to obtain maximum fees; also, this is not that far off some studies indicating that somewhere in this range will compensate for block billing entries—as you can find by visiting our Fee Substantiation category.)
Homeowner then pled poverty, indicating that the trial judge should have taken into account her impecunious financial situation based on the splintered judicial opinions set forth in Garcia v. Santana, 174 Cal.App.4th 464 (2009). The problem was that this argument was not raised in the trial court, so that it was deemed as having been waived on appeal. Ultimate result: fee award, affirmed.