2 Cal. App. 5th 252
Cal. Ct. App.2016Background
- Thomas and Lynn Hazelbaker (through their trust) made exterior patio alterations to their Rancho Mirage condominium; the homeowners association (Association) asserted the changes violated the CC&Rs.
- The Association initiated mandatory Davis‑Stirling ADR; mediation produced a written Memorandum of Agreement requiring specific patio modifications and a prevailing‑party attorney‑fees clause for enforcement actions.
- Defendants did not complete the specified modifications within 60 days; the Association sued for specific performance and declaratory relief and later obtained different, but Association‑approved, modifications by September 2014.
- The Association moved for attorney fees under Civil Code §5975(c), seeking ~$31,970; the trial court awarded $18,991 in fees and $572 costs, excluding pre‑mediation fees and heavily‑redacted billing entries.
- Defendants filed a late opposition to the fee motion and a timely but ultimately untimely motion for reconsideration; the trial court denied reconsideration as untimely and the court of appeal affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a suit to enforce a settlement reached in Davis‑Stirling ADR is an “action to enforce the governing documents” under §5975(c) | The enforcement suit enforces CC&R compliance arising from ADR initiated under Davis‑Stirling; §5975 should apply and allow fee recovery | The action enforces a settlement agreement (contract), not the governing documents, so §5975 should not apply | Court: Yes. Where ADR was mandated by Davis‑Stirling and the dispute concerns CC&R compliance, an action to enforce the mediated agreement falls within §5975(c) |
| Whether the Association was the prevailing party for fee award purposes | Association obtained the practical relief sought—defendants modified the property into compliance—so it prevailed | Defendants argued they substantially complied, achieved concessions, and that differences show Association did not prevail; they also faulted the court for not considering late opposition | Court: Association prevailed on a practical level; differences were de minimis and the Association achieved its main objectives |
| Whether the trial court abused discretion in the amount of fees awarded (redacted bills, scope, timing) | Award limited to post‑mediation fees and excluded inadequately documented items; trial court acted within discretion | Defendants argued insufficient record, excessive redactions, and lack of articulation of the fee computation | Court: No abuse. Trial court reasonably excluded pre‑mediation fees and unclear entries, resolved doubts for defendants, and need not provide detailed fee findings |
| Whether judgment and fee liability properly extended to Lynn Hazelbaker and whether reconsideration denial was erroneous | Association: both defendants jointly represented and acted together; judgment and fee award against both is proper; reconsideration untimely | Defendants: Lynn was not a signatory to the mediation agreement; reconsideration should have been allowed | Court: Judgment against both proper (action enforces CC&Rs and Lynn participated/joint filings); reconsideration denial proper because motion was after entry of judgment and raised no new grounds |
Key Cases Cited
- Villa De Las Palmas Homeowners Assn. v. Terifaj, 33 Cal.4th 73 (court explains Davis‑Stirling consolidation and context for common interest development law)
- Grossman v. Park Fort Washington Assn., 212 Cal.App.4th 1128 (Davis‑Stirling fee statute covers ADR‑related prelitigation efforts and subsequent enforcement actions)
- PLCM Group, Inc. v. Drexler, 22 Cal.4th 1084 (trial court has discretion to determine reasonable attorney fees)
- Heather Farms Homeowners Assn. v. Robinson, 21 Cal.App.4th 1568 (analysis of prevailing‑party determination under homeowners association fee statutes)
- Gorman v. Tassajara Development Corp., 178 Cal.App.4th 44 (no general rule requiring trial courts to explain attorney‑fee decisions in detail)
- Steiny & Co. v. California Electric Supply Co., 79 Cal.App.4th 285 (attorney testimony on hours worked can suffice to support fee awards)