Tract 19051 Homeowners Assn. v. Kemp
Los Angeles · CA · Supreme Court of California
Member win · other
What happened
A group styling itself Tract 19051 Homeowners Association sued lot owners (including the Kemps) to enforce restrictions. Defendants prevailed on the merits because plaintiffs failed to prove a common interest development subject to the Davis-Stirling CID Act. The trial court still awarded defendants attorney fees under former Civil Code § 1354(c) (CID Act fee provision). The Court of Appeal affirmed the merits win for defendants but reversed the fee award. On March 5, 2015, the California Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal on fees, reinstating the defendants’ fee award.
What the court (or agency) held
Homeowner defendants kept their merits win and regained attorney fees. When a plaintiff sues to enforce CID-type restrictions under the Davis-Stirling fee statute, defendants who prevail—including by showing the property is not a CID to which the Act applies—may recover fees under former § 1354(c). The fee statute is not limited to prevailing parties only after a finding that a CID exists.
Why this matters for members
Voluntary or informal “associations” that sue neighbors under Davis-Stirling risk paying the other side’s fees if they cannot prove a CID—and the fee statute can still apply to the enforcement attempt. Owners defending dubious restriction suits should preserve fee claims even while arguing the Act does not govern the subdivision.
What the member did
Defended the enforcement suit on the merits and sought reciprocal statutory attorney fees as prevailing parties.
Questions for the board
- Is this community actually a recorded common interest development with statutory CC&Rs, or a voluntary group?
- What authority does the board cite before suing owners to enforce architectural or use restrictions?
- Who bears attorney fees if enforcement fails because no CID is proven?
- Have governing documents and maps been reviewed by counsel before litigation?
Questions for a lawyer
- Does former § 1354(c) / current Davis-Stirling fee statute support fees when the defense win is ‘not a CID’?
- What evidence shows or negates CID status for Tract 19051-type facts?
- How should a fee motion be framed after a merits judgment for defendants?
- What litigation risks attach to plaintiffs who sue under the Act without proving its applicability?
Citation
Tract 19051 Homeowners Assn. v. Kemp, 60 Cal. 4th 1135; S211596 (2015) (2015-03-05). Supreme Court of California. Outcome chip: member_win. Source: https://scocal.stanford.edu/opinion/tract-19051-homeowners-assn-v-kemp-34394
_General information, not legal advice. Outcomes turn on facts and current law._
General information, not legal advice. Outcomes turn on facts and current law.