Source: https://pacificviewcenter.com/2012/04/22/100-attorneys-fees-win-for-turner-law-firm-in-view-rights-case/
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 22:42:28+00:00

Document:
The Turner Law Firm was awarded 100% of its attorney’s fees and costs in a view rights dispute. The case is important because it concerns the reciprocal nature of statutory attorney’s fees provisions, including whether they apply if the defendant prevails in the action on the grounds that the statute is not applicable.
The Turner Law Firm represented a property owner that was sued by an alleged homeowner’s association and 48 of the 94 lot owners to stop construction of a two story house that our client was building. The CC&Rs limited construction to single family houses. The plaintiffs alleged that the tract was a “common interest development” under the Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act (Civil Code §1350, et seq.) The Davis Striling Act has a prevailing party attorney’s fees provision: “In an action to enforce the governing documents, the prevailing party shall be awarded reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.” Civil Code §1354(c).
The Davis-Stirling Act provides that a “planned development” may be a “common interest development,” and the Act defines the term “planned development” as having either or both the following elements: (1) The tract has a common area, which is owned either by an association or in common by the owners of the separate interests; and/or (2) the association has the power to enforce the obligation of the property owners to maintain the common area “by means of an assessment which may become a lien.” Civil Code §1351(k). The issue of whether an older tract was a “planned development” under the Davis-Stirling Act had been addressed in Mount Olympus Property Owners Assn. v. Shpirt (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 885, 895. The court in that case held that the tract was not a planned development because there were no common areas and the association was voluntary.
The Court found in favor of the Turner Law Firm’s client on the issue that the tract was not a common interest development because there were no common areas; the association was voluntary; and the association had neither assessment nor lien power.
The plaintiffs appealed the trial court’s decision. The court of appeal in an unpublished decision affirmed the substantive ruling for the defendants, but reversed the attorney’s fees award. In an extremely rare move, the California Supreme Court granted review of the unpublished Court of Appeal opinion, limiting review to the attorney fees issues.
This entry was posted in Court Cases, HOAs, Local Laws & Ordinances, Neighbor v. Neighbor, PVRC News and tagged attorney’s fees, CC&Rs, Civ. Code §1717, Civil Code §1350, Civil Code §1354(c), Civil Code §1357, common interest development, Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act, HOA Disputes, Homeowners Associations, Mount Olympus Property Owners Assn. v. Shpirt (1997), Neighbor v. Neighbor, property owner, statutory attorney’s fees provisions, The Turner Law Firm, view rights. Bookmark the permalink.

References: §1350
 §1354
 §1351
 v. 
 v. 
 §1717
 §1350
 §1354
 §1357
 v. 
 v.