Kemp

Tract 19051 Homeowners Assn. v. Kemp

Good Law
184 Cal. Rptr. 3d 701·2015 Cal. LEXIS 1216·60 Cal. 4th 1135·343 P.3d 883
Supreme Court of CaliforniaMarch 5, 2015S211596California7,711 words

Opinion

Opinion

Cantil-Sakauye, J.

The issue before us in this case is the validity of an attorney fee award granted in favor of defendant homeowners under former section 1354, subdivision (c), of the Civil Code, a provision of the Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act (Civ. Code, § 4000 et seq.; hereafter the CID Act). The CID Act applies to various types of development projects, but a common interest development for purposes of the act requires a project with a common area. (See 9 Miller & Starr, Cal. Real Estate (3d ed. 2011) § 25B:1, pp. 25B-6 to 25B-7 (rel. 10/2007).) Former section 1354(c)— the attorney fee statute at issue here — provided in full; “In an action to enforce the governing documents, the prevailing party shall be awarded reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.” (Added by Stats. 2004, ch. 754, § 1, p. 5838.) The term “governing documents,” in turn, was defined in former section 1351, subdivision (j) (as amended by Stats. 2002, ch. 1111, § 1, pp. 7115, 7117-7118, now § 4150) to mean the official documents governing “the operation of [a] common interest development.”

The underlying lawsuit in this matter was filed by the Tract 19051 Homeowners Association and a number of individual…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.