Second District, Division 6 Finds Intervenor Was In Same Position As Parties to the Lawsuit for Fee Shifting Purposes.
Here is a case involving an interven0r for our category “Intervenors”--a category that we have not posted on for some time. The case is Larson v. Las Posas Hills Homeowners Assn., Case No. B219066 (2d Dist., Div. 6 Feb. 1, 2011) (unpublished) and comes out of the Second District, Division 6.
In this one, adjacent property owner intervened in an action between homeowners and an HOA over a permit denial of a two story residential addition that would have blocked adjacent owner’s views. After a five day bench trial, HOA and intervenor were granted judgment under CCP § 631.8 and declared to be the prevailing parties pursuant to Civil Code section 1354(c), a fee shifting statute when CC&Rs are successfully enforced by a prevailing party. HOA was awarded fees of $71,637.52 (out of a requested $191,324 in costs and fees), while intervenor was awarded fees of $49,650 (out of a requested $81,567 in costs and fees). Homeowners appealed only the attorney’s fees award to intervenor.
Their main challenge was that an intervenor is not entitled to attorney’s fees under section 1354. This argument was rejected, with the appellate court citing law that indicated an intervenor is a full-fledged party to an action by virtue of the intervention authorizing order and cases holding that intervenors can recover fees/have fee exposure under fee shifting statutes. (See, e.g., City of Santa Monica v. Stewart, 126 Cal.App.4th 43, 87 (2005) [CCP § 1021.5]; Crawford v. Board of Education, 200 Cal.App.3d 1397, 1407 (1988) [same]; Catello v. I.T.T. General Controls, 152 Cal.App.3d 1009, 1013-1014 (1984) [CCP § 1032 costs]; Montgomery v. Bio-Med Specialties, Inc., 183 Cal.App.3d 1292, 1295-1296 (1986) [Civil Code § 1717].)
The appellate court also found the anti-intervenor decision of Blue Lagoon Community Assn. v. Mitchell, 55 Cal.App.4th 472 (1997) distinguishable based on the reasoning in the later case of Kaplan v. Fairway Oaks Homeowners Assn., 98 Cal.App.4th 715, 720-721 (2002), given that Blue Lagoon involved a petition to reduce the HOA percentage voting requirements under a much different Civil Code section 1356 having different considerations at issue.
With respect to the claim that intervenor’s attorney’s efforts were duplicative of HOA work, the appellate court found that this contention failed because homeowners failed to identify the specifics as to why the award was excessive. BLOG OBSERVATION--More and more, we see appellate courts reject excessiveness arguments or find them waived if the appellant fails to specifically delineate the work items that are claimed to be unreasonable in nature.
The fee award to intervenor was affirmed in this decision, authored by Justice Perren on behalf of a 3-0 panel.
Comments