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

1,261 chars

Deane Gardenhome adumbrated the Hsu decision by holding that a certain result was clearly governed by the entitlement clause, not the discretionary clause. The dispute involved a family who had painted their home particular shades of pink and green after obtaining permission from the homeowners association president to do so. The homeowners association denied its president’s representation, sued, and lost when the trial court ruled the president had indeed “approved the color choice.” (Deane Gardenhome, supra, 13 Cal.App.4th at p. 1396.) That is, the family had obtained a “simple, unqualified win.” However, the trial court simply refused to enforce the attorney fee clause on the theory the case was just too petty to apply it, i.e., the gain to the family was “minute compared to the litigation costs.” (Id. at p. 1399.) This court reversed, first noting that the family was entitled to its costs (id. at p. 1398), and then noting the asymmetry inherent in the trial court’s determination: If relative economic interests could thwart the operation of section 1717, then attorney fee clauses in homeowners association CC&R’s (covenants, conditions, and restrictions) would, in practical effect, be mostly unilateral affairs. (13 Cal.App.4th at p. 1399.)

Other Sections in This Document (49)

Full Text