Jennings v. Bayside Court Owners Association CA1/5
A171339
| Cal. Ct. App. | Jun 27, 2025Background
- Laurence J. Jennings, owner of a condominium unit at Bayside Court, sued the Bayside Court Owners Association and others, primarily alleging fraudulent conveyance of common areas and violations of the association’s governing documents (CC&Rs).
- Jennings acted in propria persona and litigated for 16 months before voluntarily dismissing the association from the lawsuit without prejudice, after settling with some other defendants.
- Bayside Court Owners Association moved for attorney fees ($144,000) and costs ($4,142.26) under Civil Code § 5975(c), arguing it was the prevailing party in an action to enforce the CC&Rs.
- Jennings opposed the motion, claiming he was the prevailing party or that there was no prevailing party, citing settlements with other defendants and an alleged settlement offer.
- The trial court awarded the association all requested fees and costs ($148,142.26), finding it the prevailing party. Jennings appealed, challenging the award.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prevailing party for fees under §5975 | Jennings achieved objectives via settlements with other parties; argued dismissal was not defeat | Association prevailed because Jennings took nothing against it; dismissal meant association achieved its objectives | Trial court did not abuse its discretion finding association prevailing party |
| Entitlement to costs after dismissal | Jennings claimed Section 998 offer precluded costs to association | Costs owed because association obtained voluntary dismissal per §1032 | Association entitled to costs; Jennings's Section 998 claim unsupported |
| Application of Civil Code §1717 | Jennings argued dismissal means no prevailing party for fees under §1717 | Section 1717 inapplicable; fees awarded under §5975, not a contract | Section 1717 not applicable; fee-shifting statute controls |
| Appellate review standard | Claimed trial court abused discretion | Award presumed correct absent prejudice shown | No abuse of discretion; appeal record inadequate |
Key Cases Cited
- Denham v. Superior Court, 2 Cal.3d 557 (Cal. 1970) (trial court orders presumed correct unless prejudicial error shown)
- Hsu v. Abarra, 9 Cal.4th 863 (Cal. 1995) (prevailing party determination based on practical litigation objectives in fee cases)
- Santisas v. Goodin, 17 Cal.4th 599 (Cal. 1998) (distinguishing between contract and statutory fee recovery)
- Parrott v. Mooring Townhomes Assn., Inc., 112 Cal.App.4th 873 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003) (no automatic rule on prevailing party after voluntary dismissal under Davis-Stirling Act)