Asbury v. Bowers CA4/3

Filed 9/19/25 Asbury v. Bowers CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

DENNIS ASBURY et al.,

Plaintiffs and Respondents, G064728

v. (Super. Ct. No. 30-2022- 01254658) TED BOWERS et al., OPINION Defendants and Appellants.

Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Thomas S. McConville, Judge. Affirmed. Bohm Wildish & Matsen, Daniel R. Wildish and Charles H. Smith for Defendants and Appellants. Ford & Diulio, Kristopher P. Diulio, Brendan M. Ford and Eduardo Dominguez for Plaintiffs and Respondents.

Defendants Ted and Celeste Bowers challenge the trial court’s denial of their motion for attorney fees under Civil Code section 5975.1 The Bowerses contend the court erred by concluding they were not prevailing parties, claiming that plaintiffs achieved none of their litigation goals. We conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion. It reasonably found that plaintiffs—the Bowerses’ neighbors—accomplished a central goal before their voluntary dismissal: getting the homeowners’ association to enforce the CC&Rs.2 We therefore affirm the court’s order. FACTS Plaintiffs and the Bowerses were all homeowners in a residential community managed by an HOA. The Bowerses sought the HOA’s approval for an expansion of their residence, including the construction of an almost 1,100 square-foot “garage and workshop.” The HOA’s architectural committee initially denied the application. But when the Bowerses appealed the decision, the HOA’s board approved the project, on the condition that the garage would not be used for commercial purposes. Plaintiffs filed this action in 2022 against the HOA and three of its board members (the HOA defendants) and the Bowerses, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. They alleged that the Bowerses planned to use the garage and workshop for commercial purposes: (1) to restore antique automobiles and (2) as a museum for antique automobiles. They claimed this violated the community’s CC&Rs, which barred the use of a lot for commercial, storage, or other non-residential purposes.