06/18/2018 — LC2018000222 HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, VINEYARD COMMONS 06/18/2018 HONORABLE PATRICIA ANN STARR View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Chris DeRose, Clerk of Court
*** Electronically Filed ***
06/19/2018 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
LC2018-000222-001 DT
06/18/2018
Docket Code 504
Form L000
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE PATRICIA ANN STARR
C. Avena
Deputy
VINEYARD COMMONS HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION
CHAD M GALLACHER
v.
BENJAMIN A DAMIAN SR. (001)
ROSE MARY M DAMIAN (001)
BENJAMIN A DAMIAN SR.
8252 EXBOURNE CIRCLE
SACRAMENTO CA 95828
ROSE MARY M DAMIAN
8252 EXBOURNE CIRCLE
SACRAMENTO CA 95828
REMAND DESK-LCA-CCC
SOUTH MOUNTAIN JUSTICE COURT
CIVIL
RECORD APPEAL ASSIGNMENT - ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED
Lower Court Case No. CC2016024067 RC
Memoranda having been filed in the above-mentioned appeal,
IT IS ORDERED assigning this appeal on June 18, 2018 to Hon. Patricia Starr for
determination of the appeal based upon the transcript of the proceedings and the parties’
memoranda, pursuant to Local Rule 9.9, Maricopa County Superior Court Local Rules of Practice,
within sixty (60) days from this date.
Oral argument is requested and this matter is referred to Hon. Patricia Starr for
determination, pursuant to Rules of Procedure in Civil Cases.
IT IS ORDERED denying request for oral argument.
504.CIVIL.OAR
NOTICE: LC cases are not under the e-file system. As a result, when a party files a docu-
ment, the system does not generate a courtesy copy for the Judge. Therefore, you will have to
deliver to the Judge a conformed courtesy copy of any new filings.
08/13/2018 — LC2018000222 HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, VINEYARD COMMONS 08/13/2018 HONORABLE PATRICIA ANN STARR View Minute Entry ↑ top
- Source
- Minute Source
Chris DeRose, Clerk of Court
*** Filed ***
08/17/2018 8:00 AM
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
LC2018-000222-001 DT
08/13/2018
Docket Code 512
Form L000
Page 1
CLERK OF THE COURT
HONORABLE PATRICIA ANN STARR
C. Avena
Deputy
VINEYARD COMMONS HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION
CHAD M GALLACHER
v.
BENJAMIN A DAMIAN SR. (001)
ROSE MARY M DAMIAN (001)
BENJAMIN A DAMIAN SR.
8252 EXBOURNE CIRCLE
SACRAMENTO CA 95828
ROSE MARY M DAMIAN
8252 EXBOURNE CIRCLE
SACRAMENTO CA 95828
JUDGE STARR
REMAND DESK-LCA-CCC
SOUTH MOUNTAIN JUSTICE COURT
MINUTE ENTRY
Lower Court Case No. CC2016024067 RC.
Appellant Vineyard Commons Homeowners Association (“Vineyard”) seeks reversal of
the trial court’s order awarding attorneys’ fees in an amount less than that requested by
Vineyard. For the following reasons, the trial court affirms the decision of the trial court in part
and reverses it in part, and remands for further proceedings consistent with this Decision.
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
LC2018-000222-001 DT
08/13/2018
Docket Code 512
Form L000
Page 2
I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Vineyard filed a Complaint against Appellees Benjamin Damian, Sr. and Rose Mary
Damian seeking judgment for unpaid assessments, accruing assessments and fees, as well as
attorneys’ fees and costs. Appellees filed an Answer and Counterclaim. The Counterclaim
alleged various claims, including unfair and unequal treatment, deficient community
maintenance, harassment, and emotional distress.
The trial court entered judgment and awarded Vineyard attorneys’ fees in the amount of
$1,500 on its Complaint, as well as $750 on the Counterclaim. (Judgment, February 2, 2018.)
The Judgment also awarded Vineyard a principal sum of $4,112.30. (Id.)
Vineyard filed a timely notice of appeal from the Judgment. This Court has jurisdiction
pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-124(A).
II. Legal Analysis
On a principal judgment of $4,112.30, Vineyard sought attorneys’ fees in the amount of
$31,599.50. Instead, the trial court awarded attorneys’ fees in the amount of $2,250.00.
According to Vineyard, this constitutes an abuse of the trial court’s discretion.
A trial court is not required to grant attorneys’ fees to the prevailing party in a contested
contract case. Associated Indem. Corp. v. Warner (Warner), 143 Ariz. 567, 570 (1985). Instead,
A.R.S. § 12-341.01 allows a court to award a successful party reasonable attorney fees “to
mitigate the burden of the expense of litigation . . .” § 12-341.01(B). The award “need not equal
or relate to the attorney fees actually paid or contracted, but the award may not exceed the
amount paid or agreed to be paid.” Id.
Under Warner, a trial court should consider: (1) whether the unsuccessful party’s claim
or defense was meritorious; (2) whether the litigation could have been avoided or settled and the
successful party’s efforts were completely superfluous in achieving the result; (3) whether a fee
award would be an extreme hardship; (4) whether the successful party prevailed with respect to
all of the relief sought; (5) whether the matter presented a novel legal question; and (6) whether
the award would discourage other parties with tenable claims or defenses from litigating them.
When a trial court makes a determination regarding fees, an appellate court may only decide
whether the ruling is within “the bounds of reason,” not whether the appellate court would have
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
LC2018-000222-001 DT
08/13/2018
Docket Code 512
Form L000
Page 3
made the same ruling. Warner, at 571. Here, the trial court’s grant of attorneys’ fees does not
exceed the bounds of reason.
As Vineyard points out, however, it also had an entitlement to attorneys’ fees under the
Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions and Easements. Under the Declaration,
Vineyard is entitled to “all” attorneys’ fees incurred enforcing a lien. This provision does not
apply to defense of the Counterclaim, which does not involve enforcement of a lien by Vineyard.
The entitlement to attorneys’ fees does relate to the Complaint, which was brought to enforce
liens.
Contracts for attorneys’ fees are enforced in accordance with the contractual terms.
Heritage Heights Home Owners Ass’n v. Esser, 115 Ariz. 330, 333 (App. 1977). But “a
contractual provision providing for an award of unreasonable attorneys’ fees will not be
enforced.” McDowell Mountain Ranch Community Ass’n, Inc. v. Simons, 216 Ariz. 266, 270, ¶
16 (App. 2007). A trial court may reduce an award that is contractually provided for only upon a
showing that the fees are clearly excessive. Id. at 271, ¶ 22.
Because the trial court did not make specific factual findings, this Court is unable to
determine if the trial court found the fees requested on the Complaint to be clearly excessive.
Thus, the matter must be remanded for such a determination.
III. CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing,
IT IS ORDERED affirming the trial court’s award of attorneys’ fees in the amount of
$750.00 on the Counterclaim.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED vacating the award of attorneys’ fees on the Complaint and
remanding for a determination of whether the request on the Complaint was clearly excessive, or
whether the attorneys’ fees should be awarded in full because the Declaration allows for an
award of all attorneys’ fees incurred enforcing liens.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED remanding this matter to the South Mountain Justice Court
for further proceedings consistent with this Decision.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying the request for attorneys’ fees on appeal, as both
parties prevailed in part.
SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA
MARICOPA COUNTY
LC2018-000222-001 DT
08/13/2018
Docket Code 512
Form L000
Page 4
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED signing this minute entry as a formal order of the Court.
/s/ Patricia A. Starr
THE HON. PATRICIA A. STARR
JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT
NOTICE: LC cases are not under the e-file system. As a result, when a party files a docu-
ment, the system does not generate a courtesy copy for the Judge. Therefore, you will have to
deliver to the Judge a conformed courtesy copy of any new filings.
