Plaintiffs Pled CC&Rs As A Basis For Nuisance Claim, So There Was Fee Entitlement Under Civil Code Section 1717, CCP Section 1021, And Civil Code Section 5975, With The Fee Award Being Reasonable After A Minor Haircut By The Trial Judge.
Plaintiff homeowners sued neighboring homeowners in a tree obstruction action based on nuisance and defendants’ alleged violation of certain specified CC&Rs. After everyone attended an unsuccessful mediation, the matter proceeded to trial and was decided in defendants’ favor. The trial judge later awarded defendants, as against plaintiffs, attorney’s fees of $132,070.40 (reduced from the $143,381.76 “ask”).
Plaintiffs’ appeal in Mascaro v. Brown, Case No. B319419 (2d Dist., Div. 6 Jan. 19, 2023) (unpublished) was unsuccessful. Although challenging fee entitlement, plaintiffs’ nuisance action was also based on CC&Rs, such that fee entitlement existed under Civil Code section 1717 (based on the CC&Rs fees provision), CCP section 1021 (same; broad CC&Rs fee provision), and Civil Code section 5975 (Davis-Stirling Act fee-shifting provision applicable where governing HOA documents are being enforced). The fees for mediation work were allowable under section 5975(c) regardless of the CC&Rs’ specific language. With respect to the amount of the fees awarded, the trial judge did not abuse his discretion given that there was competent fee substantiation in the form of invoices and the lower court did reduce some duplicative, unnecessary work. Finally, the appellate court agreed that the defendants were also entitled to reasonable appellate fees for their win in the appeal.
Comments