Email

Complaints

User Account

Login/Logout

Search

Talk Back

Tools

December 12, 2002 Case No: GIN 026443 Brook Hills HOA v Bass & Bass v Brooks Hills.Peters California Superior Court County of San Diego Branch: North County Division Brook Hills HOA & Cross-Complaintant Bass Represented by: David Peter, Michael Kim, Peters & Freedman CAI Member v. Bass & Cross defendants :John Nilsson Peters & Freedman & N.N. Jaeschke Represented by: Mary Goodhue Deutsch CAI Member

6. Did Peters & Freedman fail to get the fees owed to the HOA by including billings they should not have? Did they resubmit their fees after Judge Stern threw out their first request for fees.     How much was Peters & Freedman paid by the Brook Hills Homeowners Association to defend the Basses cross complaint? Did Peters & Freedman fail to get the fees owed to the HOA by including billings they should not have? When Judge Stern threw an earlier bill for fees, did they submit it and recover it for the Brook Hills HOA? Court Documents Show That Homeowner Association lawyers Peters & Freedman Ask for Tens of Thousands in Non-Allowable Legal Fees - Court Documents Signed Under Penalty of Perjury Posted Feb 18 2005 3:36AM CET     Username withheld , California   5. These apathetic Brook Hills Homeowners Association neighbors must love financing their litigious board and vendors!!     From AHRC Newsletter - February 17, 2005 "The homeowners report that their Directors and Officers insurance premiums that all Brookhills homeowners are required to pay will skyrocket and all of the homeowners will have to pay higher dues. The Basses and their neighbors, they say, will pay dearly for the hundreds of thousands of dollars the Basses and the insurance company paid the lawyers to squabble over a light in a private yard." These apathetic Brook Hills Homeowners Association neighbors must love financing their litigious board and vendors!! Posted Feb 18 2005 3:20AM CET     Username withheld , California   4. Judge gives Peters & Freedman $82,525.50 for suing homeowner over a light on her property     Judge denies Peters & Freedman fees they requested for "unreasonable..excessive interoffice attorney conferences, unnecessary and duplicative trial work; charges unrelated to Plaintiff; charges unrelated to this action; charges for work performed on behalf of other cross-defendants and for which Plaintiff counsel was reimbursed... San Diego Superior Court, California The following is a TENTATIVE ruling for 2/18/2005, Department 27, the Honorable Jacqueline M. Stern presiding. Case Number GIN026443 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ The court rules on Plaintiff's evidentiary objections to the Bass declaration as follows: The objections to para 7 are sustained as to the statements on lines 21 and the middle of line 23-line 26 only. The objections to para. 11 are sustained as to the statements on lines 9-11 only. The objections to paragraphs 8, 9, and 14 are overruled. The balance of the objections to the Bass declaration are sustained. The court rules on the objections to the Taylor declaration as follows: The objections to paragraphs 2-21 are sustained. The objections to paragraph 22 are sustained except for the objection based on the Defendants' failure to bring a timely Motion to Tax. This is not an evidentiary objection, but is a procedural argument, which is properly addressed in the reply points and authorities. Plaintiff's motion to be declared the prevailing party is granted pursuant to Civil Code 1717. Under that statute, a prevailing party is defined as "the party who recovered a greater relief in the action on the contract". The court has no discretion to invoke equitable considerations to conclude that under the circumstances, an award of fees would be unjust. (See Hsu v Abbara (1995) 9 Cal.4th 863). The court can only exercise its discretion to conclude that no party has prevailed on the contract, pursuant to CC 1717(b)(1). However, the Court can only exercise its discretion to find no prevailing party where the results of the litigation are "mixed", i.e., where the opposing litigant could each legitimately claim some success in the litigation. (Hsu, supra 9 Cal. 4th 863). After reviewing the judgment entered following the trial of this matter, the court concludes that Plaintiff is the prevailing party for purposes of awarding fees under CC 1717. Defendants were found to be in breach of the CC&Rs and were ordered to remove the unapproved structures on their property. When the relief awarded is compared with the parties' demands on their claims and their litigation objectives as disclosed by the pleadings, opening statements, etc., it is clear Plaintiff is the prevailing party for purposes of awarding fees. Plaintiff's request for an award of fees in the amount of $123,019.00 is denied as unreasonable. This amount includes fees not requested or mentioned in the moving papers, but only raised for the first time in the reply; fees for excessive interoffice attorney conferences, unnecessary and duplicative trial work; charges unrelated to Plaintiff; charges unrelated to this action; charges for work performed on behalf of other cross-defendants and for which Plaintiff counsel was reimbursed, and charges which should have been sought much earlier in this lawsuit, per CCP 425.16(j), CRC 2(f), and CRC 870.2(b)(1). Based on the record before the court and the factors set out in Serrano v Unruh (1982) 32 Cal.3d 621, fn. 6, the court awards Plaintiff the amount of $82,525.50 as reasonable fees incurring in prosecuting this matter. Defendants' request to reduce Plaintiff's costs is denied. Costs cannot be stricken by way of an opposition to an attorney fee motion. Costs can only be contested by filing a timely Motion to Tax Costs pursuant to CRC 870(b). Posted Feb 17 2005 11:37PM CET     Username withheld , California   3. Any progress on final settlement in the Bass - Brook Hills case     I've been following Bass / Brook Hills case with interest. Has there been any progress on final settlement since your April article. Frank Whitney Posted Jul 19 2004 11:56AM CEST     Username withheld , California   2. Copy of Complaint and Cross Complaint     Attached are PDF copies of : 1. Complaint by homeowner association lawyers Peters & Freedman - David Peters and Mark T. Guthrie filed in December 2002 Case: Brook Hills Homeowners Association v Bass 2: First amended Cross Complaint by homeowners lawyer Mary Deutsch Basses v Brook Hills v Brook Hills Homeowners Association, Peters & Freedman, N.N. Jaeschke, John Nilsson Posted Mar 16 2004 7:33AM CET   Submitted Files Filename Description File Type File Size Click to download FACC.pdf Cross Complaint filed by Mary Deutsch against Brooks, Peters & Freedman , N.N. Jaeschke and John Nilsson - December 16, 2002 Brook Hills Homeowners Association v Bass GIN 026443 PDF document, version 1.3 832KB Download Complaint.pdf Complaint filed by Peters & Freedman - December 16, 2002 Brook Hills v Basses PDF document, version 1.3 538KB Download   Username withheld San Juan Capistrano, California   1. Case Number: GIN 026443 Brook Hills HOA v Bass & Bass v Brooks Hills.Peters     This looks a lot like the lawsuit I will be presenting against Shadow Crest Homeowners Association, after mediation which the attorney, Brian Moreno, DUKE GERSTEL & SHEARER, suggested he wanted. Except I am adding Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 13, Sec. 241 "Conspiracy against rights, and Sec. 245 "Federally protected activities". I have the board members on conspiracy and on perjury on the stand, and in personal declarations -- under and penalty of perjury. Also, there is $14,000 missing and they won't let me see the books and records under AB104. I will let you all know how it goes in mediation. Then, the lawsuit! Posted Mar 15 2004 7:58PM CET     Sharon Stephens (View Profile) Cathedral City, California

Return to 'Case Number: GIN 026443 Brook Hills HOA v Bass & Bass v Brooks Hills.Peters' | Submit a comment

Forums