You Won Your Condo Property Dispute. Who Pays the Attorney Fees?

A condominium owner spent more than seven years in court fighting a neighbor over a single parking space. It took two trials and two appeals. In the end the owner won: the court quieted title to the space in its favor, and the judgment declared it the prevailing party and said it would recover its attorney fees "as determined by appropriate Motion." Then it filed that motion, for $292,544, and got nothing. On September 28, 2026, the Court of Appeal affirmed. The owner won the property and still paid every dollar of its own lawyers.

If you own a condo, townhome, or a home in a planned development anywhere in Los Angeles, the reason matters, because the same thing can happen in any dispute with a neighbor or an HOA. Whether HOA attorney fees are recoverable in California does not turn on who wins. It turns on what the lawsuit was about.

The fee statute every HOA dispute starts with

California follows the American rule: each side pays its own lawyers unless a contract or a statute says otherwise. In common interest developments, the statute that usually says otherwise is Civil Code section 5975, part of the Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act. Subdivision (c) reads, in full: "In an action to enforce the governing documents, the prevailing party shall be awarded reasonable attorney's fees and costs."

That word "shall" is why owners and associations treat fees as automatic. When the statute applies, a court has no discretion to refuse them. But the statute has two conditions, not one. The winner must be the prevailing party, and the case must be "an action to enforce the governing documents." Section 4150 defines governing documents as the declaration (the CC&Rs) and other documents such as bylaws, operating rules, and articles that govern the operation of the development or the association.

Most fee fights are about the first condition. WCST Enterprises, LLC v. Ling is about the second, and it shows how easily a winning party can fail it.

What happened in WCST Enterprises v. Ling

WCST Enterprises, LLC v. Ling (Sept. 28, 2026, G065236) is a published decision of the Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, on appeal from the Orange County Superior Court. The opinion is by Justice Moore, joined by Presiding Justice Motoike and Justice Scott.

The complex was developed in the 1960s, and its recorded plan assigned detached garage spaces to individual units. Berit Ling bought Unit 39 in 1998 and began using both spaces in a two car garage directly across from her unit. Her grant deed described her garage simply as "39G," a designation that turned out not to exist on the map. The owner of neighboring Unit 38 had a deed that did identify one of those two spaces as his. He raised it with Ling more than once, got nowhere, and sold the unit in 2018 to WCST Enterprises, an LLC formed by the buyer to purchase it as a residence. The sale disclosures told WCST that Unit 39 had been using the whole garage and that litigation might be needed.

WCST sued in January 2019 for ejectment, quiet title, violation of the CC&Rs, and trespass. Ling won the first trial in 2020; that result was reversed on appeal. At the retrial, the court tried the quiet title claim first. It found the garages were owned in fee, not common area, and that WCST's deed clearly conveyed the disputed space. WCST then waived its remaining claims, including the CC&R claim, and submitted a judgment.

WCST moved for $292,544 in fees under section 5975, subdivision (c), and under the CC&Rs' own fee clause through Civil Code section 1717. The trial court denied both, because WCST could not point to any provision of the CC&Rs it had enforced. In the trial court's words, "simply because an exhibit is entered into evidence [that] does not make the case about enforcing a document."

Why "prevailing party" in the judgment did not settle it

WCST's lead argument was that the judgment itself had already decided the question. It named WCST the prevailing party and said WCST would recover its fees, so the only thing left for the motion was the amount.

The Court of Appeal rejected that, and said it published the opinion specifically to make this point. The term "prevailing party," it wrote, "is not a magic incantation." It does not let a winner skip past the basic rule that each side pays its own lawyers unless a contract or statute shifts the fees. A generic prevailing party line in a judgment, entered before any fee motion is filed, does not create an entitlement that the law does not otherwise give. The trial court kept its discretion to deny fees if the motion did not show a statutory or contractual basis.

The court also addressed the cases WCST relied on. Rancho Mirage Country Club Homeowners Assn. v. Hazelbaker (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 252 says that once the trial court found the association to be the prevailing party, it had no discretion to deny fees. But the WCST court pointed out that the Rancho Mirage court said so only after holding the case was an action to enforce the governing documents. The mandatory language comes into play only once both conditions are met.

The test: what was the lawsuit really trying to enforce?

Under Salawy v. Ocean Towers Housing Corp. (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 664, which the WCST court applied, it is not enough that a lawsuit arises out of or relates to the governing documents. The gravamen of the action, its essential point, has to be enforcement of rights the governing documents provide.

WCST's quiet title case failed that test because of how it was built and tried. The complaint opened by quoting WCST's grant deed and walking through the chain of deeds back to the original developer. WCST's trial brief said it owned the space "by virtue of a Grant Deed" and that the garage spaces were granted "in fee title, via Grant Deed." The judgment rested on the fourth page of WCST's deed. The CC&Rs, the plan, and the map were all in evidence, but the map's role was to show where the spaces were, not to create WCST's right to one of them. With no trial transcript in the appellate record, the court presumed WCST had not argued that the governing documents conveyed the space.

WCST did identify two CC&R provisions Ling had supposedly violated: a general duty to comply with the covenants, and a ban on nuisance activity. The problem was where those allegations lived. They were in the cause of action for violation of the CC&Rs, which WCST waived after winning on title. The court found nothing in the record showing they were raised at trial, and WCST had not shown it was entitled to section 5975 fees for claims it had dropped.

The contractual claim failed for the same reason. The CC&R fee clause covered actions to enjoin violations of the restrictions or other actions "necessary under the existing facts," and WCST never explained how its quiet title action enforced any of those restrictions.

The parking space cases that did get fees

The sharpest part of the opinion is its list of cases where fees were awarded, because one of them involved the same kind of property. In Crestmar Owners Assn. v. Stapakis (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 1223, the WCST court noted, the action enforced a CC&R provision about transferring parking spaces. The other examples followed the same pattern. Tract 19051 Homeowners Assn. v. Kemp (2015) 60 Cal.4th 1135 involved CC&R height and setback restrictions. Rancho Mirage involved CC&R rules on property improvements. Kaplan v. Fairway Oaks Homeowners Assn. (2002) 98 Cal.App.4th 715 involved voting rights under the bylaws.

So the subject matter was never the issue. A fight over a parking space can be an action to enforce the governing documents. What separated Crestmar from WCST was the source of the right being enforced: a specific provision of the CC&Rs in one case, a grant deed in the other.

Where this leaves owners and associations

The practical lessons come from decisions WCST made years before the fee motion.

1. Identify the fee basis before you file, not after you win. If fees matter to whether a case is worth bringing, and in a dispute over a parking space they usually decide it, find the specific provision of the CC&Rs, bylaws, or rules you are enforcing and build the complaint around it.
2. Think hard before waiving the claim that carries the fees. WCST dropped its CC&R cause of action after it won title, which is a common and understandable move to end a long case. It was also the claim with the fee hook. If you waive it, assume the fees go with it.
3. Put the governing documents to work at trial. Exhibits alone did nothing for WCST. If your right depends on the CC&Rs or the recorded plan, argue that it does, and make sure a court reporter is present so the record shows it.
4. Do not lean on prevailing party language in a proposed judgment. Drafting it in does not create a right to fees. The motion has to prove the statutory or contractual basis on its own.
5. Remember the statute cuts both ways. Section 5975 awards fees to "the prevailing party," not to the plaintiff. An owner or association that sues to enforce the governing documents and loses can be ordered to pay the other side.

One more step comes before filing. Under Civil Code section 5930, an association or member generally may not file an enforcement action in superior court seeking only declaratory, injunctive, or writ relief (alone or with damages within the small claims limits) unless the parties have first tried to submit the dispute to alternative dispute resolution.

What if you are the defending neighbor?

Ling's position illustrates the other side. She lost the space after roughly two decades of using it. But because WCST's case was a title case built on deeds, she was not ordered to pay its fees, and the appellate court awarded her costs on appeal.

If a neighbor or association sues you, read the complaint for the source of the right being asserted. A case grounded in deeds, easements, or general property law may carry no fee exposure at all unless a separate contract supplies one. A case grounded in a specific CC&R provision almost certainly does, in both directions, and that should shape early settlement decisions.

A few limits on the decision

The opinion turned partly on the state of the record and on WCST's briefing. The court criticized WCST's opening brief as unfocused and repetitive, considered only arguments identified in its headings, and treated the rest as forfeited. A party that clearly argued at trial that the recorded plan itself allocated the garage space to its unit might be in a different position; the court noted WCST had not shown it made that argument below. WCST was filed on September 28, 2026, so treat it as the current published word rather than the last one.

For related reading, see our guide to quiet title actions between co owners, the glossary entry on quiet title, our overview of when you can recover your attorney fees in litigation, and our article on easement disputes in California.

Talk to a Los Angeles real estate attorney

The Darvish Firm's Los Angeles real estate litigation lawyers represent condominium and planned development owners, and associations, in disputes over parking, common area, CC&R enforcement, and title. If you are deciding whether to sue a neighbor or an HOA, or you have just been served, the fee question should be answered at the start. Call (310) 677-3512 or request a consultation.

This article is general information about California law, not legal advice, and reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Every case depends on its facts. Consult an attorney about your specific situation.