Plaintiffs’ Pleadings Showed They Were Not Suing To Enforce Governing CC&Rs.
We have done many posts over the years on homeowner disputes, some involving HOAs-homeowners and some just between homeowners. With respect to many HOA disputes, there is a Davis-Stirling Act fee shifting provision which allows the prevailing party in a dispute to enforce governing HOA documents (usually CC&Rs) to recover mandatory fees. The thorny issue, especially in homeowner versus homeowner disputes, is whether the claims are truly ones to enforce governing HOA documents under Civil Code section 5975(c). That was the crux of the dispute in Henkel v. Blasi, Case No. D082895 et al. (4th Dist., Div. 1 Jan. 16, 2025) (unpublished).
The homeowner versus homeowner dispute involved plaintiffs suing for defendants’ trespass onto their property to cut cap honeysuckle shrubs to obtain a better view, with accompanying cross-claims being at issue. However, a close review of the pleadings show that tort claims were involved, not enforcement of HOA governing documents. Although plaintiffs did obtain a favorable trespass verdict against defendants and also defeated the defense cross-claims, the lower court did issue two post-judgment rulings generating appeals: (1) it denied plaintiffs’ request for attorney’s fees under the Davis-Stirling Act fee shifting statute (given that the parties finally agreed fees were not allowable under Civil Code section 1717), prompting on appeal by plaintiffs; and (2) it did sustain plaintiffs’ routine costs request of roughly $72,000, triggering an appeal by defendants.
All results were affirmed on appeal. With respect to the fee denial, which the appellate court reviewed under a de novo standard on Davis-Stirling Act fee entitlement, it found that the parties’ claims were not ones brought to enforce governing documents (different than one where the dispute might “arise out of or relate to” governing documents, one which is foreclosed by the Civil Code section 5975(c) language with narrower “to enforce” language). The allegations of the pleadings must be consulted on fee entitlement in this area, with that examination showing that tort claims were involved, not amorphous references to governing documents given no direct governing document claim was brought. (LNSU #1 v. Alta Del Mar Coastal Collection Community Assn., 94 Cal.App.5th 1050, 1082-1083 (2023).) On the costs appeal, the defense argued that there should be an offset for a good faith settlement with other parties, but this argument failed because the defense took the position defendants were not joint tortfeasors with the separate settling defendants, not to mention that plaintiffs were eligible for routine costs because they beat the defendants’ cross-complaint completely.
Comments