Ranch at the Falls v. Indian Springs Homeowners Assn. CA2/8

Filed 2/10/22 Ranch at the Falls v. Indian Springs Homeowners Assn. CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION EIGHT

RANCH AT THE FALLS LLC et B311278 al.,

Plaintiffs, Cross-defendants (Los Angeles County and Appellants, Super. Ct. No. PC055790)

v.

INDIAN SPRINGS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC.,

Defendant, Cross-complainant and Respondent.

APPEAL from a postjudgment order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Melvin D. Sandvig, Judge. Affirmed. Cozen O’Connor and Frank Gooch III for Plaintiffs, Cross- defendants and Appellants. O’Toole Rogers, Nicholas A. Rogers, Aaron A. Hayes; Beaumont Tashjian, Lisa A. Tashjian and Tara M. Radley for Defendant, Cross-complainant and Respondent.

__________________________________

SUMMARY This is a dispute over the trial court’s award of attorney fees to defendant Indian Springs Homeowners Association, Inc., as the prevailing party under Civil Code section 1717. The fee award followed this court’s reversal of the trial court’s earlier judgment in favor of plaintiffs Ranch at the Falls LLC and April Hart. (Ranch at the Falls LLC v. O’Neal (2019) 38 Cal.App.5th 155 [finding plaintiffs had no enforceable easement over certain private streets in Indian Springs].) The reversed judgment included an award of attorney fees to plaintiffs, who had asserted and prevailed on their contention they were entitled to fees as third party beneficiaries of easement and maintenance agreements between defendant and another homeowners association. Now, plaintiffs contend the trial court erred in applying the doctrine of judicial estoppel to preclude plaintiffs from contesting defendant’s entitlement to fees. Plaintiffs contend no attorney fees should be awarded because the judicial estoppel doctrine also applies to defendant, who opposed—unsuccessfully—the original award of attorney fees to plaintiffs. We find no merit in plaintiffs’ contention. We also reject plaintiffs’ assertions that their financial condition required the trial court to award no fees, and that the fees were unreasonable and excessive. We therefore affirm the attorney fee order. FACTS In 1998, defendant recorded a declaration of easement in favor of abutting landowners, including plaintiffs, and so did the homeowners association in neighboring Indian Falls (the 1998 easement declarations). The parties to this lawsuit disagreed over the scope of those easements.