HOA Disputes – Modifying HOA Conduct Through Litigation

Many HOA disputes arise from an HOA’s refusal to act or otherwise comply with its responsibilities under its CC&Rs. Sometimes disputes arise from the most trivial action or inaction taken by the HOA Board. Homeowners are then faced with the proposition of litigating and incurring attorney fees in order to compel the HOA to comply with its own rules and regulations. Litigation should be avoided where possible but sometimes a homeowner is left with little choice.

We’ve recently encountered HOA Boards who have effectively waited until a lawsuit was filed by a homeowner, to then make the repair or undo a prior wrongful/unlawful act. It is in these circumstances wherein we’ve then seen HOA Boards argue that the homeowner is not entitled to attorney fees as the prevailing party because the harm was addressed prior to trial. California Courts have taken this issue under consideration and seem to agree with the view that the homeowner who brought the lawsuit is nevertheless entitled to his/her attorney fees.

A plaintiff may prevail for purposes of statute providing attorney fees if the lawsuit was the catalyst motivating the defendant to modify its behavior or the plaintiff achieved the primary relief sought. See Molski v. Arciero Wine Group, (2008) 164 Cal. App. 4th 786, 790 (“A plaintiff may ‘prevail’ for purposes of [Civil Code] section 55 if the lawsuit was the catalyst motivating the defendant to modify its behavior or the plaintiff achieved the primary relief sought.”); see also Donald v. Café Royale, Inc., (1990) 218 Cal. App. 3d 168, 185 (Restaurant was not a “prevailing party” and was not entitled to attorney fees when trial court denied handicapped person’s request for injunctive relief for noncompliance with handicapped access standards since restaurant was indisputably in violation of handicap access requirements and injunctive relief was denied for express reason that restaurant was no longer in business, not because access violations had not been demonstrated.); see also California Common Cause v. Duffy, (1987) 200 Cal. App. 3d 730, 741 (“A plaintiff will be considered a prevailing party when the lawsuit ‘was a catalyst motivating defendants to provide the primary relief sought’ or succeeded in ‘activating defendants to modify their behavior.’”) (Internal citations omitted.)
“A plaintiff should not be denied attorney’s fees because resolution in the plaintiff’s favor was reached by settlement, through the defendant’s voluntary cessation of the unlawful practice or because the lawsuit was resolved on a preliminary issue obviating the adjudication of other issues.” Id. at 742.

Thus, if the homeowner’s lawsuit was the catalyst for modifying the HOA Board’s behavior, that homeowner would be deemed the prevailing party for purposes of an attorney fees award. If you are a homeowner and seek advice regarding your HOA Board, contact one of our HOA Dispute Attorneys in Los Angeles for a free consultation and case evaluation.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *