HOA Interpretation Of Palm Tree View Policies Was Correct, Such That It Was The Prevailing Party.
Over the years, because a lot of us live in common interest developments, we are used to seeing homeowner association fights with homeowners, many occurring based on view restriction or tree limitations—generating plenty of disputes by both sides. In the next case, HOA prevailed and, with it, garnered a substantial attorney’s fees award under the CC&Rs prevailing fees provision and the Davis-Stirling Act fee-shifting section. We have seen this before in our category “Homeowner Associations,” which can be easily accessed for prior decisions—many large, some for the HOAs and some for the homeowners. But a lot are not good in the end, resulting in financial issues for the losing homeowners or special assessments for the HOA members bearing the brunt of a lot of HOA fights.
In Maravich v. Dover Shores Community Association, Case Nos. G056152/G056965 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Mar. 5, 2020) (unpublished), homeowners sued HOA because palm trees on other properties grew to detract from scenic views of the Eastbluff area of Newport Beach and dramatic night light views of Fashion Island. The dispute centered on CC&Rs and policies granting the HOA discretion to take appropriate action for trees that “impede and block” views. HOA sided with the downhill homeowners, finding it had discretion to allow the taller trees to stay.
The trial judge rendered a “split” type of decision, although awarding HOA prevailing party fees of $390,668 (yep, no typo here). On appeal, the appellate court went with the HOA interpretation of the tree ordinances, so the fee award was sustained completely. Just goes to show you how HOA disputes can be prohibitively expensive for homeowners where fee-shifting provisions are in place.
Justice Ikola authored the 3-0 opinion.
Comments