Whispering Ridge Homeowners Association v. Chaudry

• Decision Date: 08 July 2003
• Docket Number: D036167.
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: WHISPERING RIDGE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ABDUL WAHEED CHAUDRY, Defendant and Appellant.

Page 1

WHISPERING RIDGE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ABDUL WAHEED CHAUDRY, Defendant and Appellant.

D036167.

Court of Appeals of California, Fourth Appellate District, Division One.

Filed July 8, 2003.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Thomas O. Murphy, Judge. Super. Ct. No. 721719.

Affirmed.

KREMER, P. J.

In accord with an order of the Supreme Court under Government Code section 68081,¹ we rehear defendant Abdul Waheed Chaudry's appeal of the portion of a judgment after court trial awarding attorney fees to plaintiff Whispering Ridge Homeowners Association (Association) as the prevailing party in Association's lawsuit to enforce its recorded declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions (CC&R's). (Civ. Code,² § 1354.)³ Upon rehearing the matter, we conclude that on this record Chaudry has not demonstrated any reversible judicial error. Hence, we do not disturb the portion of the judgment awarding Association attorney fees.

I INTRODUCTION

We state the facts in the light most favorable to Association as the party prevailing in the superior court. (Huntington Landmark Adult Community Assn. v. Ross (1989) 213 Cal. App. 3d 1012, 1018, 261 Cal. Rptr. 875.)

As coowner with his brother of a lot in the common interest development managed by Association, Chaudry refused to landscape his yard as required by Association's controlling CC&R's and related rules.⁴ Association sent Chaudry various letters stating his failure to landscape his lot constituted a violation of the CC&R's. In April 1998, Chaudry's brother was personally served with a request for alternative dispute resolution (ADR) involving the matters later at issue in this lawsuit, but Chaudry's brother never responded to such request. (§ 1354, subd. (b).)

In June 1998 Association filed this lawsuit against Chaudry based upon his refusal to landscape his yard.⁵ Association's complaint was accompanied by a certificate of service of Association's April 1998 ADR request, including a statement that Chaudry's brother never responded to the request. Association pursued claims for nuisance, injunction and declaratory relief.

During the course of this lawsuit, Chaudry was generally unwilling to cooperate with Association's counsel. Chaudry refused to stipulate that he owned a home in the development managed by Association. Chaudry also refused to stipulate to the authenticity of Association's CC&R's. Further, throughout the litigation, Association made several offers to settle, including an offer to waive more than $ 7,000 in attorney fees if Chaudry would plant grass on his lot.

In July 1999, after a court trial on the merits of this lawsuit, a judgment was entered favoring Association on all causes of action in its complaint (the underlying judgment). The underlying judgment required Chaudry to comply with Association's governing documents and landscape his lot. The underlying judgment also stated that under section 1354 and Association's governing documents, the court found Association to be the prevailing party and ordered Chaudry "to pay reasonable attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to Noticed Motion." Chaudry appealed the underlying judgment.

Consistent with the underlying judgment, Association proceeded to file a memorandum of costs and, over Chaudry's opposition, was awarded costs of $ 884.04.⁶ Also consistent with the underlying judgment, Association moved for attorney fees. In May 2000, after protracted litigation involving ex parte hearings, continuances and Chaudry's challenges to three judges, Judge Murphy held a three-hour hearing on Association's request for attorney fees.⁷ Based upon that hearing, in June 2000 Judge Murphy entered a subsequent judgment (June 2000 judgment) that included an award of $ 22,473.22 attorney fees and $ 884.04 costs to Association as the prevailing party under section 1354 and Association's governing documents. Chaudry filed this appeal of the June 2000 judgment.

In September 2001, on Chaudry's appeal of the underlying judgment, we reversed the judgment with respect to Association's nuisance claim but affirmed the remainder of the judgment. (Whispering Ridge Homeowners Association v. Chaudry (Sep. 25, 2001, D034624 [nonpub. opn.]) (Whispering Ridge).) In doing so, we rejected Chaudry's claims of error involving discovery disputes; irregularities by Association with respect to its internal "'pre-suit'" procedures; Chaudry's equitable defenses of waiver, laches and estoppel; and Chaudry's limitations defense. (Ibid.) We also awarded attorney fees on the appeal of the underlying judgment to Association as the prevailing party under section 1717, section 1354, subdivision (f) and the attorney fees clause of the CC&R's. (Whispering Ridge, supra.)

In October 2002, in a now-vacated decision (October 2002 decision), we affirmed the portion of the June 2000 judgment awarding attorney fees to Association. In January 2003, the Supreme Court granted Chaudry's petition for review and transferred the cause with directions that we vacate our October 2002 decision and rehear the matter pursuant to Government Code section 68081. In accord with the Supreme Court's order, we vacated our October 2002 decision and invited the parties to submit supplemental briefing on the question whether the doctrines of res judicata, collateral estoppel or law of the case precluded Chaudry from raising issues that were determined, or could have been determined, in the related appeal on the merits of the underlying judgment in Whispering Ridge, supra, D034624.⁸ We also granted Chaudry's request to include in his supplemental briefing the issue whether the attorney fees award improperly included the amount of $ 1,900 previously sought unsuccessfully by Association as discovery sanctions. We denied Chaudry's request to include in his supplemental briefing the issue of witness credibility.⁹ After filing supplemental briefing, the parties again presented oral argument to this court.

We note that Chaudry's original opening brief asserted his "primary contention on the fee issue" was that Association's counsel "had engaged in a pattern of materially misleading conduct in the attainment of the [underlying] judgment upon which an award of fees was sought"; and such behavior "constituted inequitable conduct for purposes of a defense to the underlying claim and the motion for an award of fees."

Although not expressly using the terms "res judicata," "collateral estoppel" or "law of the case," Association's original respondent's brief asserted that (1) the attorney fee hearing occurred after entry of the underlying judgment that held Association was the prevailing party entitled to attorney fees upon noticed motion; (2) "this court has already considered the merits of the underlying litigation, and affirmed the judgment"; and (3) Chaudry's appeal "simply reargues the merits of the underlying judgment." Association's brief also asserted that at the attorney fee hearing (1) most of Chaudry's arguments opposing Association's fee request pertained to the "propriety of the trial"; (2) the superior court properly disregarded Chaudry's arguments about the underlying judgment; and (3) the judge correctly told Chaudry that an attack on the underlying judgment would be appropriate on appeal of that judgment but not during the attorney fee motion hearing. Further, Association's brief characterized as unsupported by any applicable authority Chaudry's argument that the court at the attorney fee hearing should have reconsidered the merits of the underlying judgment ordering him to install landscaping.

Finally, Chaudry's original reply brief asserted that at the attorney fee hearing (1) the record was "replete with instances of clearly misleading" factual allegations bearing on the "procedural and substantive legitimacy of the underlying action" and on Association's claim that the requested fees were necessary or reasonable; (2) the court had an "affirmative duty" to consider Chaudry's claims that Association's "pattern" of "misleading and unethical conduct" in "the attainment of the underlying judgment" "tainted" the judgment and any resulting attorney fee award; (3) the court reversibly erred by failing to consider and make factual determinations on Chaudry's claims based on the unclean hands doctrine that Association's counsel's purportedly "misleading conduct in the attainment of the underlying judgment should operate as a bar to recovery of fees"; and (4) by not overcoming Chaudry's claims of legal error in the rendition of the judgment, Association failed to demonstrate its requested attorney fees were reasonably "incurred in an action which was lawfully and equitably pursued in the first instance."

II DISCUSSION

Seeking reversal of the portion of the June 2000 judgment awarding attorney fees to Association as the prevailing party, Chaudry contends the superior court committed numerous errors involving his various assertions of purportedly material misconduct by Association's counsel. Chaudry also contends the amount of the attorney fees award was unreasonable. However, as we shall explain, Chaudry has not demonstrated any reversible judicial error with respect to Association's counsel's asserted misconduct. Further, Chaudry has not shown the court abused its discretion with respect to the amount of the attorney fees award. Accordingly, we must uphold the June 2000 judgment.

A No Reversible Judicial Error Involving Association's Counsel's Asserted Misconduct

In contending the superior court erred in granting Association's motion for attorney fees, Chaudry's opening and supplemental briefs argue the court improperly failed to consider whether an attorney fees award should be precluded by Association's counsel's purported materially misleading and unethical conduct in prosecuting the merits of its underlying case, including assertedly false and fraudulent statements that Association had complied...