de la Cuesta v. Benham, 193 Cal. App. 4th 1287 (2011)

Citation: de la Cuesta v. Benham, 193 Cal. App. 4th 1287 (2011)
Parent Document: de la Cuesta v. Benham, 193 Cal. App. 4th 1287 (2011)
Jurisdiction: California (state)
Effective Date: 2011-03-29
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/5810133/de-la-cuesta-v-benham/ ↗

Full Text

1,499 chars

Finally, Jackson v. Homeowners Assn. Monte Vista Estates-East (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 773 [113 Cal.Rptr.2d 363], was another mixed result case that was a far cry from lopsided: Three plaintiffs sued a homeowners association with a senior citizen provision in its CC&R’s, apparently because they wanted to rent out their property. (See id. at p. 788.) They completely lost in the trial court (they were to take nothing and were not entitled to any relief) (ibid.), but appealed and got an opinion that tinkered with the second sentence of one paragraph of the CC&R’s (see ibid.). Subsequent to the appeal, the parties agreed to settle the case (but reserving the attorney fee issue for future adjudication): The homeowners association paid the plaintiffs $2,500. A casual reader, in fact, might completely miss the significance of the modification obtained at the Court of Appeal, but, as explained elsewhere in the opinion, apparently it eliminated a provision that had “effectively prevented” the plaintiffs from “renting their property.” (Ibid.) In any event, the trial court’s determination that the plaintiffs were not prevailing parties was upheld on appeal. The court noted that “Both sides claim victory” and “substantial arguments” supporting both “sets of claims” balanced out. (Ibid.) After all, the association had gotten away with only paying a nuisance settlement monetarily, and the plaintiffs “did not obtain any injunctive relief as requested in the complaint.” (Ibid., italics added.)

Other Sections in This Document (49)

Full Text