[Attorney’s Fees; Prevailing Party] Where both sides achieved some positive net effect as a result of the court’s ruling, a prevailing party determination is made by comparing the practical effect of the relief attained by each; After resolving the issue of prevailing party in an action to enforce the governing documents, a trial court has ...

[Attorney’s Fees; Prevailing Party] Nether party achieved litigation objective to warrant the status as the prevailing party entitled to its attorneys’ fees.

[Architectural Control; Architectural Standards] A HOA had the authority to adopt architectural standards beyond those set forth in the CC&Rs based upon empowering language in the CC&Rs governing the same.

[Amendments to CC&Rs; Court Petition] Objectors to a petition brought pursuant to Civ. Code § 1356 (§ 4275) are not entitled to costs and attorney’s fees when the petition is denied.

[Rent Restrictions; Short-term Rentals] A restriction on short-term rentals is a “prohibition” within the meaning of Civil Code section 4740 and is enforceable only against owners who purchased properties after the restriction was in effect.

[ADR; Bylaws Amendment] An amendment to the Bylaws by the HOA incorporating an arbitration provision does not bind ongoing disputes and accrued claims.

[Rent Restrictions; Single-Family Use] A “single-family” use restriction in the association’s CC&Rs could prohibit an owner from renting portions of his unit to separate, unrelated individuals that did not have any pre-existing or ‘familial’-type relationship with each other. Such a restriction did not violate the owner’s rights of privacy under the California Constitution.

[Maintenance; Board Deference] The deference afforded to HOA Boards for maintenance decisions does not extend to the Board’s interpretation as to the scope of the HOA’s maintenance responsibilities under its CC&Rs.

[Declaration; Enforcement] HOAs may file declaratory relief actions for an authoritative interpretation of the governing documents; An owner need not be a defendant in any lawsuit brought by a HOA to discharge its own duty to enforce the CC&Rs simply because that owner complains about a neighbor’s proposed construction.

[Commercial Use; Board Deference] A Board’s determination of whether a business or commercial activity affects the residential character of a HOA was entitled to judicial deference.

[Architectural Control; Board Powers] An association’s board of directors may not adopt rules that are in conflict with the CC&Rs.

[Enforcement; Standing to Sue] A prior owner of a unit within an association does not have standing to enforce the CC&Rs.

[CC&R Amendments; Real Estate Signs] Court upheld lender consent requirement for CC&R amendment, rather than lender vote; Real estate signs may be regulated for aesthetic purposes and may be prohibited from being posted in HOA common areas.

[Freedom of Speech; Private Property] Actions of a private property owner constitute state action for purposes of California’s free speech clause only if the property is freely and openly accessible to the public.

[Short-term Rental Restrictions; Coastal Communities] A HOA within a coastal zone may not have the ability to restrict short-term rentals without approval of the California Coastal Commission.

[Attorney’s Fees; ADR; Pre-Litigation] Pre-litigation attorney’s fees that are incurred in alternative dispute resolution (ADR) are recoverable by the prevailing party in subsequent ligation.

[Attorney’s Fees; Prevailing Party] The determination as to who is the “prevailing party” entitled to its attorney’s fees under the Davis-Stirling Act is based on the court’s analysis of which party prevailed on a practical level. When that determination is made, the court’s ruling should be affirmed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion.

[Operating Rules; Non-Resident Use] A HOA may create and enforce a rule excluding non-resident owners from use of the HOA’s common area recreational facilities.

[CC&R Enforcement; Renter Standing; Attorney’s Fees] The right to enforce CC&Rs is tied to ownership in a property; renters do not have standing to sue a HOA for a violation of its CC&Rs. Plantiff’s lack of standing does not preclude Defendant’s recovery of attorney’s fees under the Davis-Stirling Act.

[Amendments to CC&Rs; Rent Restriction] An amendment to the CC&Rs which empowered the HOA to evict tenants who violate the CC&Rs was held to be reasonable.

[Governing Documents; Use Restrictions] CC&R restrictions are presumed reasonable, and are enforceable unless they are arbitrary, impose burdens on the use of land that outweigh their benefits, or violate public policy.

[Discrimination; CC&R Age Restrictions] A provision in a HOA’s CC&Rs prohibiting residency by persons under the age of 18 is discriminatory, invalid and unenforceable.

[Amendments to CC&Rs; Court Petition] Voter apathy not a required showing in a petition to reduce approval requirements of CC&R amendment.

[Architectural Control; Statute of Limitations] The 5 year statute of limitations under Code Civ. Pro. § 336 applies to both recorded restrictions as well as unrecorded restrictions such as architectural guidelines.

[Fiduciary Duty; Business Judgment Rule] The Business Judgment Rule does not automatically shield a HOA director from liability that may result from the director’s failure to exercise reasonable diligence or failure to act within the scope of the director’s authority under the HOA’s governing documents.

[Attorney’s Fees; Prevailing Party] The court found the Association to be the prevailing party and awarded its attorney fees after homeowners filed a request for dismissal of complaint.

[CC&R Amendments; Court Petition] Proposed HOA CC&R amendments must be approved by at least a simple majority of the total votes in a HOA before a trial court may reduce the approval requirement set in the CC&Rs.

[Restrictions; Duty to Enforce] A homeowner has the right to sue the HOA to compel the HOA to uphold its duty to enforce the restrictions.

[Attorney’s Fees; ADR; Settlement Agreement] An action to enforce a settlement agreement reached between a HOA and an owner through Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) was held to be an action to enforce the governing documents entitling the prevailing party to an award of attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to Civ. Code § 5975.

[Use Restrictions; Nuisances] A HOA has the power to issue reasonable regulations governing an owner’s use of his unit in order to prevent activities which might prove annoying to the general residents.

[Attorney’s Fees; Prevailing Party] A HOA is deemed a prevailing party entitled to recover its attorney’s fees where the outcome of the lawsuit results in the HOA realizing its litigation objectives on a practical level.

[Attorney’s Fees Awards; Non-CID Action] Attorney’s fees may be recovered by the prevailing party under Civ. Code § 5975 in an action to enforce the governing documents regardless of whether the association is in fact a common interest development that is subject to the Davis-Stirling Act.

[CC&R Amendments; Binding Effect] CC&R amendments enacted by homeowners are accorded the same presumption of reasonableness as those imposed by developer; CC&R amendments are binding against both current and future homeowners.

[Enforcement; Recorded Notice of Noncompliance] An association is not legally authorized to record a notice of noncompliance in response to a member’s violation of the CC&Rs.

[Operating Rules; Rental Activities; Board Deference] Homeowners associations may adopt reasonable rules and impose fees on members relating to short-term rentals of condominium units.