Solera Loses Appeal for $90,472.50 Legal Fees

Trial Court Case: RIC1512779

Court of Appeal Case: E066366

Case Caption: Aristea Hupp et al. v. Solera Oak Valley Greens Association

Case Type: CV

Filing Date: 07/11/2016

"March 1, 2016, Solera moved for an award of attorney’s fees jointly against Paul and

Aristea Hupp. Solera’s attorney’s fees request was brought under the attorney’s fees
clause in Solera’s CC&Rs, and Civil Code sections 1717 and 5975, subdivision (c).
Solera sought $90,472.50 in attorney’s fees (239.1 hours at $375 per hour and 1.8 hours
at $450 per hour)."

Background: "On May 4, 2016, the trial court heard Solera’s motion for attorney’s fees and found that Solera was the prevailing party. The court granted Solera’s motion for recovery of attorney’s fees but rejected Solera’s request for $90,472.50 in attorney’s fees. Instead, the trial court awarded Solera $3,000 in attorney’s fees (10 hours at $300 per hour). Solera timely appealed the attorney’s fees order entered on June 10, 2016."

“On June 23, 2017, during the pendency of the instant appeal, this court entered its decision in Aristea’s appeal, granting relief to Aristea. Therefore, she was entitled to proceed with her claims alleged in the first amended complaint against Solera.”

"The underpinnings of the joint attorney’s fees award therefore significantly changed with the reversal of dismissal of Aristea’s claims, resulting in the attorney’s fees award becoming premature."

"Under such circumstances, in which there was a post judgment joint award of attorney’s fees, and subsequent partial reversal of the judgment of dismissal as to Aristea, we conclude the joint award of attorney’s fees, if still existing, must be vacated, and Solera’s appeal shall be dismissed as moot."

Disposition: “Solera’s appeal of the award of attorney’s fees and costs is dismissed as moot. The trail court is directed to vacate the $3,000 attorney’s fess award, if the trail court has not already done so. Each party is to bear its own costs on appeal.”

Read Full Case Opinion Here: http://www.courts.ca.gov/opini...