Mabury Ranch HOA v. Peterson CA4/3

Filed 1/30/14 Mabury Ranch HOA v. Peterson 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

THE MABURY RANCH HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, G044759 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 30-2008-00115161) v. OPINION JAMES R. PETERSON,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, James Di Cesare, Judge. Affirmed. James R. Peterson, in pro. per.; Victor E. Hobbs for Defendant and Appellant. Slaughter & Reagan, William M. Slaughter and Gabriele M. Lashly for Plaintiff and Respondent. * * *

The Mabury Ranch Homeowners Association (the Association) successfully sued a homeowner regarding maintenance of his property and related issues. Due to an untimely notice of appeal, the only issue currently before this court is whether the trial court properly granted the Association $160,000 in attorney fees and $7,213 in costs as a prevailing party. Because Peterson has not established the trial court committed error, we affirm. I FACTS In sum, the Association sued James Peterson for failing to maintain his home. The Association received a judgment in its favor in December 2010. On January 2011, the Association filed a motion seeking $235,247 in attorney fees, plus $4,800 in additional attorney fees and $7,213 in costs. Peterson opposed. On February 3, 2011, the court granted the Association $160,000 in attorney fees and $7,213 in costs, stating that “[i]t is undisputed that plaintiff prevailed in this action.” The court calculated attorney fees at $185 per hour. The court also denied the Association’s request for prelitigation fees of $10,199. Peterson appealed, both from the underlying judgment and from the attorney fees order. On March 29, 2013, in response to the Association’s motion to dismiss the appeal, we filed an order dismissing the appeal “as untimely to the extent it purports to appeal from the judgment filed on December 3, 2010. Appellant’s notice of appeal, filed on February 4, 2011 is more than 60 days after respondent’s service of notice of entry of judgment, which service occurred on December 3, 2010.” We noted that we could, however, review the issue of attorney fees and costs. On April 26, we