SOUTH BEVERLY PARK HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. v. NORTH BEVERLY PARK HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC.
SOUTH BEVERLY PARK HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents,
v.
NORTH BEVERLY PARK HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., Defendant and Appellant.
No. B221375.
Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division Three.
Filed August 1, 2011.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTSKLEIN, P. J.
Defendant and appellant North Beverly Park Homeowners Association (the North) appeals a postjudgment order awarding attorney fees of $733,536.44 and costs of $93,389.69 to plaintiffs and respondents South Beverly Park Homeowners Association, Inc. (the South) and the individual South homeowners, David Sydorick, Virginia Sydorick, Allison Berg, Laurence Berg, Bob M. Cohen, Michele Cohen, Mo Gharavi, Jennifer Gharavi, Richard Zanuck, Lilly Zanuck, Irving Zuckerman, Peyman Daneshrad, Shadi Daneshrad, Louise Taper, Michael Solomon, Luciana Solomon, Daniel Blatteis, Angela Blatteis, Earvin Johnson, Cookie Johnson, Samuel Jackson and LaTanya Jackson (collectively, the South) following a court trial involving the interpretation of a written grant of an easement.
The threshold issue presented is whether the trial court lost jurisdiction to grant attorney fees to the South. Thereafter, in the event the trial court retained jurisdiction to make an award of attorney fees, the issues are whether the trial court properly found the South was the prevailing party, and whether the North's CC&Rs authorize the award of attorney fees to the South for having prevailed in this litigation involving the North's CC&Rs.
We conclude the trial court acted within its jurisdiction to make the subject order. After initially declining to rule on the attorney fees motion and taking it off calendar, the trial court duly granted reconsideration on its own motion and then awarded attorney fees to the South.
Further, the trial court acted within its discretion in finding the South was the prevailing party. The record fully supports the trial court's determination the South had achieved its litigation objective of access to the easement.
Finally, the trial court properly found the South was the intended third party beneficiary of the North's CC&Rs, specifically, section 24.08 thereof, which gives the South's members, guests and invitees an easement across the North. Because the South prevailed in litigation to enforce the CC&Rs, the South was entitled to recover attorney fees pursuant to the attorney fee provision found at section 17.02 of the North's CC&Rs.
1. On appeal, the North does not contend the amount of the attorney fee award is excessive. Rather, the North takes the position the South is not entitled to recover attorney fees in any amount.
2. This summary is drawn in part from our prior nonpublished opinion in this matter, South Beverly Park Homeowners Association, Inc. v. North Beverly Park Homeowners Association, Inc. (Aug. 19, 2010, B216652) (Beverly Park I).
3. Section 17.02 of the North's CC&Rs states: "Costs and Attorneys' Fees. In the event of any litigation or arbitration resulting from a breach or violation or alleged breach or alleged violation of the provisions of this Declaration, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover costs and expenses, including reasonable attorneys' fees, incurred in connection therewith."
4. All further statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure, unless otherwise specified.
5. Actually, the trial court was reconsidering its ruling of August 26, 2009 that there was no prevailing party, not the October 9, 2009 ruling. The October 9, 2009 ruling was the ruling granting reconsideration on the court's own motion.
6. Section 24.08 of the North's CC&Rs stated in relevant part: "Easements in Favor of Members of Beverly Park Homeowners Association [i.e., the South]. There is hereby reserved for the benefit of those Members of [the South] . . . an easement in, over and across the Private Street known as Beverly Park as shown on the Final Map for ingress, egress and access through the Project to Mulholland Drive, Summitridge Drive or Lot 71 of the Final Map. There is hereby reserved for the benefit of the [South] Members an easement in, over and across Lot 71 of the Final Map for ingress, egress, park use and recreational purposes subject to the provisions of this Declaration. The easements in this Section 24.08 shall be for the exclusive use of the [South] Members and shall be subject to the rules and regulations established by the Association and the provisions of this Declaration." (Italics added.)
Following the trial on the merits, which clarified the intent of the parties, the trial court entered judgment reforming section 24.08 of the North's CC&Rs to add the words "and their guests and invitees" to the persons benefited by the South's easements.