There is no substitute for expertise. HOA law is what we do.

*New Case Lawhoa-attorney-fees-governing-docs

Civil Code Section 5975(c) serves a vital function for any HOA’s enforcement efforts. Should a HOA be required to file a lawsuit to enforce its governing documents, Section 5975(c) entitles the HOA to recover from the defendant homeowner the HOA’s attorney’s fees, provided that the HOA is the “prevailing party” in the lawsuit. This right for a prevailing party to recover its attorney’s fees in an action to enforce a HOA’s governing documents is also commonly found in the provisions of a HOA’s CC&Rs.

But what is the technical definition of “prevailing party?” The Davis-Stirling Act does not define the term “prevailing party,” nor does it provide any metric for making that determination. As a result, California courts have concluded that the test for determining the prevailing party is a pragmatic one—namely, whether a party can be deemed the prevailing party requires a determination that the party “prevailed on a practical level by achieving its main litigation objective.” This test may be relatively easy to apply in some situations, and not so easy in others. For example, assume that a HOA’s lawsuit seeks to recover a substantial sum in fines for an owner’s violation of the rules, but the HOA is only awarded roughly 10% of that amount. Can the HOA be said to have achieved its main litigation objective, despite the fact that the ruling was arguably more favorable to the owner than it was to the HOA?

This hypothetical was actually litigated in the recent case of Almanor Lakeside Villas Owners Assn. v. Carson (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 761 (“Almanor”).  In Almanor, the defendant homeowners (the Carsons) were sued by the HOA to enforce provisions of the HOA’s CC&Rs relating to short-term rentals. The Carsons disputed the applicability of those provisions to them, as well as the HOA’s attempt to enforce other rules relating to trash storage, common area use, and boat decals, and to ultimately fine the Carsons for their violations of those rules. The trial court ruled that the HOA could enforce its rules and awarded attorney’s fees to the HOA in an amount of roughly $100,000, in addition to $6,620 in fines (approximately 10% of the amount originally imposed by the HOA and sought by it in the lawsuit). The Carsons appealed and lost. The HOA was deemed the prevailing party despite its inability to recover roughly 90% of the unpaid fines it originally pursued in the lawsuit.  The Court in Almanor concluded that the key issue in the lawsuit was the HOA’s authority to enforce the rules and to impose fines for violations, not the amount of the fines themselves. Because the trial court found that some of the fines were enforceable, the Court of Appeal held that the HOA “met its objective” in the lawsuit and was appropriately deemed the prevailing party:

“The fractional damages award does not negate the broader practical effect of the court’s ruling, which on the one hand narrowed the universe of restrictions that [the HOA] could impose on the properties, but on the other hand cemented [the HOA’s] authority to promulgate and enforce rules pursuant to the CC&Rs…Taken together and viewed in relation to the parties’ objectives…we conclude that these outcomes were adequate to support the trial court’s ruling [that the HOA was the prevailing party].” (Almanor, at 775.)

California HOA lawyers This holding provides valuable guidance on the issue of attorney’s fee awards in the context of HOA enforcement actions. Lawsuits to enforce a HOA’s governing documents often involve multiple claims or causes of action that asserted against a problematic homeowner. Even where a trial court is reluctant to grant every remedy sought by the HOA, if the practical effect of the lawsuit is consistent with the HOA’s principal objective (i.e., to make the homeowner comply with the governing documents), the HOA should still be deemed the prevailing party entitled to recover its attorney’s fees and costs incurred in connection with its lawsuit.

Meadow-WalkWe are proud to announce that Meadow Walk Homeowners Association has selected Tinnelly Law Group as their associations’ legal counsel.

Meadow Walk, by Shea Homes, is a brand new townhome community located within the charming urban village of Bay Meadows, a progressive new urban village on the Caltrain Line in the heart of San Mateo. Built on the famous Bay Meadows Racecourse where Seabiscuit won two stakes in the 1930s, residents will enjoy a community garden, bike paths, parks and more than 18-acres of rambling open space.

hoa laws Our HOA attorneys and staff look forward to working with Meadow Walk’s Board and management.

SageWe are proud to announce that Sage Homeowners Association has selected Tinnelly Law Group as their associations’ legal counsel.

Sage, by Shea Homes, is a brand new master planned community located in Livermore. Residents will enjoy a 1.5 mile walking and bike path, swimming pool, outdoor and indoor fitness centers, a community activities building, yoga lawn, community garden, and an art walk.

hoa laws Our HOA attorneys and staff look forward to working with Sage’s Board and management.

first-time-homebuyerWe previously blogged about H.R. 3700, the “Housing Opportunity Through Modernization Act of 2016”, which was signed by the President on July 29, 2016.  H.R. 3700 required the Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) to streamline the Federal Housing Administration (“FHA”) recertification process, provide regulations for commercial space exemptions, allow for deed-based transfer fees, and lower the owner-occupancy requirement within ninety (90) days of the bill’s approval.  In response to these provisions and changes in the condominium market, HUD proposed a new rule governing the certification requirements for condominium associations.  The proposed rule includes the following reforms:

Continue Reading ›

Mission-GroveWe are proud to announce that Mission Grove Community Association has selected Tinnelly Law Group as their associations’ legal counsel.

Mission Grove, by D.R. Horton, is a brand new condominium community located in San Marcos.  Conveniently located near Cal State San Marcos and Palomar Community College, the community features tot lots, pool, BBQ and picnic benches for residents to enjoy.

hoa laws Our HOA attorneys and staff look forward to working with Mission Grove’s Board and management.

Carmel-RowWe are proud to announce that Carmel Row Community Association has selected Tinnelly Law Group as their associations’ legal counsel.

Carmel Row, by ColRich, is a brand new townhome community located in San Diego. Adjacent to future retail spaces and just minutes from parks, local beaches, freeways and numerous business centers, Carmel Row is a convenient and luxurious option for area homebuyers interested in high-end living without the up-keep of detached homes.

hoa laws Our HOA attorneys and staff look forward to working with Carmel Row’s Board and management.

*New Case Lawhoa-mediation

The Davis-Stirling Act promotes the nonjudicial resolution of disputes between homeowners associations (“HOAs”) and their members in various respects. One example is found contained in Civil Code Sections 5930 et. seq.  which, in sum, require that the disputing parties to endeavor to resolve the dispute through Alternative Dispute Resolution (“ADR”) before a lawsuit is filed. ADR is essentially a form of mediation that uses a neutral third-party mediator (often a retired judge) to assist the parties in securing a mutually acceptable resolution.

Experienced HOA Board members, management professionals, and attorneys understand that ADR is often successful in resolving a dispute before it escalates to costly and protracted litigation. That resolution is typically memorialized in a written settlement agreement negotiated during ADR and executed by the parties. The settlement agreement often governs what actions must be taken by the parties within specified time frames. For example, in an architectural dispute, the settlement agreement may require the homeowner to take corrective measures (i.e., to modify or remove unapproved architectural improvements) within a specified time frame.

However, in some instances, a party to the settlement agreement may subsequently fail to honor its terms. The other party is then placed in a position of having to take legal action to enforce the other party’s compliance with the settlement agreement. The enforcing party may then have concerns regarding its ability to recover its attorney’s fees in taking such action. While the Davis-Stirling Act allows for a prevailing party in an action to enforce a HOA’s governing documents to recover its attorney’s fees, it is unclear whether enforcement of a settlement agreement reached at ADR constitutes such an enforcement action.

Fortunately, the recent case of Rancho Mirage Country Club HOA v. Hazelbaker (2016) 2 Cal. App. 5th 252 (“Hazelbaker”) addressed this exact issue… Continue Reading ›

Sommerset-CitihomesWe are proud to announce that Sommerset Citihomes Homeowners Association has selected Tinnelly Law Group as their association’s legal counsel.

Located in the City of Costa Mesa, the Sommerset Citihomes condominium community consists of 120 beautiful condominium homes located just a few blocks from South Coast Plaza, South Coast Metro, and Crystal Court. Residents enjoy using the community pool, spa, and taking a walk to the nearby shopping centers.

hoa laws Our HOA attorneys and staff look forward to working with Sommerset Citihomes’s Board and management.

Le-ParcWe are proud to announce that L’Association Des Propriataires (“Le Parc”) has selected Tinnelly Law Group as their association’s legal counsel.

Le Parc is a condominium community located in Lake Forest.  Originally designed by Johannes Van Tilburg & Partners, this award-winning project was completed in three different phases in 1983 and 1984.  Le Parc boasts three pools and three spas complimented by 4 water features, and presents itself as an island of calm within the greater hustle and bustle of Lake Forest.  Over 600 trees including palm trees surrounding the pool areas as well as alder and eucalyptus add to the already peaceful demeanor to make Le Parc a true urban forest.

hoa laws Our HOA attorneys and staff look forward to working with Le Parc’s Board and management.

familyThe U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) recently adopted regulations for evaluating claims of harassment in housing and housing related transactions because of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability, or familial status under Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 (“Fair Housing Act”).  The new regulations, which will directly impact Homeowners Associations (“HOAs”), are set to take effect October 14, 2016.

Brief Background

Both Courts and HUD have long recognized that the Fair Housing Act prohibits harassment in housing and housing related transactions on account of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability, or familial status in the same way that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”) prohibits harassment on these same basis in an employment setting.  Prior to HUD’s adoption of these new regulations, Courts often applied Title VII standards when evaluating claims of harassment in the housing setting.  However, because employment and home settings are different environments, the application of one to another is not always appropriate.  To address these deficiencies, HUD recently adopted formal standards for evaluating claims of harassment under the Fair Housing Act.

The new regulations directly impact HOAs because their directors and officers are the ones who are responsible for investigating an owner’s or tenant’s claim of housing related harassment.  Furthermore, liability for harassment under the Fair Housing Act can be imposed not just on the HOA but on its officers and directors for their own actions as well as the actions of third-party agents like a management company.

Continue Reading ›

Contact Information