The court awarded attorney fees and costs to Villas as the prevailing party pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5 and Civil Code sections 1717 and 1354. The court correctly held Villas was the holder of the attorney-client privilege and that individual homeowners could not demand the production of privileged documents, except as allowed by the Villas board. Villas brought the construction defect litigation on its own behalf. This represents a substantive change in previous case law which only accorded individual owners standing to sue. Cove Townhomes, Inc. v.
Corporations have a separate legal identity and enjoy the benefit of the attorney-client privilege.
3 West' s Ann. There is no statutory exception for shareholders, even for closely held entities, and courts are powerless to elaborate upon the legislative scheme. Although appellants, as condominium owners, were members of Villas, they were not individually named as plaintiffs in the construction defect litigation. Because they did not consult with or retain the Duke, Gerstel law firm, they do not fit within the joint-client exception of Evidence Code section 962. We have squarely rejected this equation between beneficiaries and allegedly true clients.