Appellate Court Tells Everyone That Some Claims May Not Be Compensable.
Homeowner Association (HOA)/homeowner disputes seem to be very acrimonious. However, depending on who prevails, there may be fee exposure under Civil Code section 1354 (CC&R enforcement) or Civil Code section 1717 (contractual fee enforcement). But, each side may have to wait until the end of the day--including numerous appeals--to decide who prevails, so that may factor into the decision into how to resolve the dispute (although we leave it to you to decipher, given the specifics of a case).
Cathedral Hill Tower Condominium Assn. v. Garbar, Case No. A124711 (1st Dist., Div. 3 June 29, 2012) (unpublished) is a third appeal between HOA and homeowners, apparently revolving about homeowners‘ installation of ceramic tile on balcony and unauthorized renovations to their condominium unit.
Even after a 7-day bench trial, one can argue that HOA and homeowners got a mixed result after the appellate court’s scrutiny of events.
Well, the appellate court reversed a dismissal of a third amended cross-complaint claims by homeowners, which meant that the lower court’s attorney fee award based on the dismissal went POOF! also. However, the apppellate court did give guidance by suggesting that certain claims may not be subject to fee recovery--so, scrutinze maybe, was the appellate admonition maybe.
BLOG UNDERVIEW--Just to show you that us bloggers stay somewhat in tune, see Carly Rae Jepsen’s hit song, “Call Me Maybe,” perhaps an interesting way in which a lot of us interact in the new technology wave and also tells us that fee disputes should be resolved “if only maybe.”