{"id":986,"date":"2016-08-16T15:05:12","date_gmt":"2016-08-16T22:05:12","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/fiduciarydutiesblog.com\/?p=986"},"modified":"2016-08-16T15:05:12","modified_gmt":"2016-08-16T22:05:12","slug":"rancho-mirage-country-club-v-hazelbaker-another-reason-not-to-fight-your-homeowners-association","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/fresnolawyerblog.com\/?p=986","title":{"rendered":"Rancho Mirage Country Club v. Hazelbaker &#8211; Another Reason Not to Fight Your Homeowners Association"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>There\u2019s an old saying &#8211; \u201cYou can\u2019t fight city hall.\u201d\u00a0 In the case of a homeowners association, the saying should be, \u201cYou can\u2019t afford to fight a homeowners association.\u201d\u00a0 Because the deck is stacked against the homeowner.<\/p>\n<p>In the recent case of <strong>Rancho Mirage Country Club Homeowners Ass\u2019n v. Thomas B. Hazelbaker<\/strong> (Aug. 8, 2016) ___ Cal.App.4th ___, the stakes for the homeowner were dramatically low.\u00a0 \u201cDefendants made improvements to an exterior patio, which plaintiff Rancho Mirage Country Club Homeowners Association contended were in violation of the applicable covenants, conditions and restrictions (CC&amp;Rs).\u201d<\/p>\n<p>What was the original dispute? \u201cThe agreement called for defendants to make certain modifications to the patio, in accordance with a plan newly approved by the Association; specifically, to install three openings, each 36 inches wide and 18 inches high, in a side wall of the patio referred to as a \u2018television partition\u2019 in the agreement, and to use a specific color and fabric for the exterior side of drapery.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>It seems the defendants had a burr under their saddle regarding the modifications.\u00a0 \u201cSubsequently, the parties reached [a modified] agreement \u2026 instead of three 36-inch-wide openings, two openings of 21 inches, separated by a third opening 52 inches wide, were installed in the wall, and a different fabric than the one specified in the mediation agreement was used for the drapery.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Oy vey.\u00a0 Someone went to court over this issue?\u00a0 \u201cWhile the lawsuit was pending, defendants made modifications to the patio to the satisfaction of the Association.\u00a0 Nevertheless, the parties could not reach agreement regarding attorney fees.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>In the end, the fight was over attorney\u2019s fees.\u00a0 <strong>Here\u2019s a big hint<\/strong> \u2013 never go to trial if the only issue in dispute is attorney\u2019s fees.\u00a0 Figure out how to settle.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"http:\/\/fiduciarydutiesblog.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/08\/Rancho-Mirage-Country-Club.jpg\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"aligncenter wp-image-987\" src=\"http:\/\/fiduciarydutiesblog.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/08\/Rancho-Mirage-Country-Club.jpg\" alt=\"Fresno real estate foreclosure lawyer\" width=\"500\" height=\"482\" \/><\/a><\/p>\n<p>According to the court, the Association prevailed in the litigation.\u00a0 \u201cThe analysis of who is a prevailing party [ ] focuses on who prevailed on a practical level by achieving its main litigation objectives \u2026 The Association wanted defendants to make alterations to their property to bring it in compliance with the applicable CC&amp;Rs, specifically, by installing openings in the side wall of the patio, and altering the drapery on the patio.\u00a0 The Association achieved that goal.\u201d<\/p>\n<p><strong>Another hint<\/strong> \u2013 The homeowner, as a practical matter, will never achieve a complete victory in litigation.\u00a0 Any relief to the Association tips the attorney\u2019s fees statute to the Association.<\/p>\n<p>Held the court, \u201cOnce the trial court determined the Association to be the prevailing party in the action, it had no discretion to deny attorney fees.\u00a0 The magnitude of what constitutes a reasonable award of attorney fees is, however, a matter committed to the discretion of the trial court.\u00a0 As noted above, in reviewing for abuse of discretion, we examine whether the trial court exceeded the bounds of reason.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>And, to rub salt in the wound, \u201cThe Association correctly asserts that if it prevails in this appeal it is entitled to recover its appellate attorney fees \u2026<\/p>\n<p>\u201cThe judgment [for $18,991 in attorney fees, plus $572 in costs] is affirmed.\u00a0 The Association is awarded its costs and attorney fees on appeal, the amount of which shall be determined by the trial court.\u201d<\/p>\n<p><strong>Rancho Mirage Country Club Homeowners Ass\u2019n v. Thomas B. Hazelbake<\/strong>r (Aug. 8, 2016) ___ Cal.App.4th ___<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>There\u2019s an old saying &#8211; \u201cYou can\u2019t fight city hall.\u201d\u00a0 In the case of a homeowners association, the saying should be, \u201cYou can\u2019t afford to fight a homeowners association.\u201d\u00a0 Because the deck is stacked against the homeowner. In the recent case of Rancho Mirage Country Club Homeowners Ass\u2019n v. Thomas B. Hazelbaker (Aug. 8, 2016) [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,5,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-986","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-case-law","category-developments","category-real-property"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/fresnolawyerblog.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/986"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/fresnolawyerblog.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/fresnolawyerblog.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fresnolawyerblog.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fresnolawyerblog.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=986"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/fresnolawyerblog.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/986\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/fresnolawyerblog.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=986"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fresnolawyerblog.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=986"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fresnolawyerblog.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=986"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}