Apportionment Not Required.
Weiss v. Citrus Heights, LLC, Case No. D058614 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Aug. 2, 2012) (unpublished) is yet a stark reminder in these economic times of fee exposure that can be visited upon foreclosed owners of homeowner association interests.
The Jumbo Lemon. 1925.
In this one, homeowners in an HOA lost a controversy on who was responsible to maintain a sewer system in the common interest development. However, homeowners lost their unit to a nonjudicial foreclosure. Usually (and it was ultimately determined), this meant homeowners also lost any ability to continue the litigation dispute.
HOA was awarded $60,610 (out of a requested $66,414) in attorney’s fees based on CCP § 1354(c) and a fee-shifting provision of the CC&Rs. Homeowners argued that the trial court should have allocated fees between HOA work and work incurred in prosecuting a cross-complaint against the developers and City of Escondido.
Because entitlement was not at issue, only the appropriateness of apportionment was really at hand for determination. The HOA’s attorney declaration demonstrated why all the work should be included, credible enough to support the determination to not apportion. Fee award to HOA affirmed.