California Case Law 2026: WCST v. Ling, Attorney Fees

Quick Answer

In WCST Enterprises, LLC v. Ling (Cal. Ct. App., 4th Dist., Div. 3, No. G065236), filed September 28, 2026 and certified for publication, the Court of Appeal affirmed an order denying attorney fees to a condominium owner who won a quiet title case over a garage space. The court held that a judgment calling a party the "prevailing party" does not by itself entitle it to fees. To recover under Civil Code section 5975, subdivision (c), the action must have a gravamen of enforcing rights provided by the governing documents, and a suit that merely relates to the CC&Rs is not enough. Here the quiet title claim rested on grant deeds.

At a Glance

The Dispute

The parties are neighbors in an Orange County condominium complex that the Huntington Harbor Corporation developed in the 1960s. WCST, owned by Maury Loomis, owns Unit 38. Berit Ling owns Unit 39 and has since 1998. They have fought for nearly a decade over garage space 38G-a, one half of a two-car garage across the driveway from their units. Ling used both halves of the garage for about 20 years. Her grant deed identifies her garage only as "39G," while the original deed to her unit referred to garages "39G-a" and "39G-b." WCST's deed refers to garages "38G (A-B)."

WCST sued in January 2019 for ejectment, quiet title, violation of the CC&Rs and trespass. This is the third appeal. After a second trial, the court quieted title to the space in WCST's favor, finding the garages are owned in fee rather than as common area. WCST waived its remaining claims. The judgment said WCST "is hereby deemed the prevailing party" and ordered that WCST "recover from [Ling], its attorney fees and costs of this action, as determined by appropriate Motion and Memorandum of Costs."

WCST then moved for $292,544 in fees under Civil Code section 5975, subdivision (c) and under a fee clause in the CC&Rs. The trial court asked for supplemental briefing, then denied fees under both sources because WCST had not identified any portion of the governing documents it was trying to enforce. The court said that simply because an exhibit is in evidence does not "make the case about enforcing a document."

What the Court Held

Procedural posture

WCST appealed the fee order. The court reviewed it for abuse of discretion, presuming the order correct and placing the burden on WCST to show error. It also said WCST's opening brief was "unfocused, repetitive, and meandering," and considered only arguments identified in its headings.

"Prevailing party" is not a magic phrase

WCST argued the court had no discretion to deny fees after naming it the prevailing party. The Court of Appeal disagreed: the label "is not a magic incantation that allows a party to bypass the well-established rule that each party must pay its own attorney fees unless a contract or statute authorizes recovery." It explained that the court "retained discretion to deny attorney fees if WCST failed to establish its entitlement to them in a subsequent motion." The court distinguished Salehi v. Surfside III Condominium Owners Assn. (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 1146 and Rancho Mirage Country Club Homeowners Assn. v. Hazelbaker (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 252, noting that fees there were mandatory only after the statutory conditions were satisfied.

Section 5975(c) requires an action to enforce the governing documents

Section 5975(c) provides: "In an action to enforce the governing documents, the prevailing party shall be awarded reasonable attorney's fees and costs." The court said the party must prove two elements: an "action to enforce the governing documents" and that it was the "prevailing party." Only the first was disputed. Following Salawy v. Ocean Towers Housing Corp. (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 664, the action "must do more than 'aris[e] out of or relate[] to' the governing documents." The "gravamen" must be enforcement of rights provided by the governing documents.

Applying that test, the court found the complaint, the trial brief and the judgment all rested on the parties' grant deeds. WCST's own trial brief said the garage spaces are granted in fee title by grant deed and are not common area. The CC&R violation claim, the only part of the complaint that quoted CC&R provisions on compliance and nuisance, was waived. The record contained no trial transcript, so the court presumed WCST had not argued at trial that the governing documents conveyed the space. Cases WCST cited all involved actions to enforce a specific right in a governing document.

Contractual fees

The CC&Rs allowed an owner to enjoin violations "or to prosecute any other appropriate legal or equitable action that may be necessary under the existing facts," and said any judgment "shall include a sum for attorneys' fees." The court found these arguments failed for the same reason: WCST did not show its quiet title action sought to enforce any CC&R right.

Why It Matters for Associations

This decision matters to associations because section 5975(c) fee shifting affects both associations and owners, and the opinion defines what an enforcement action is. Our reading is that fee-shifting attaches to the type of claim, not to the fact that a dispute occurs inside a common interest development.

• Title, boundary, easement or deed disputes between owners may not qualify as actions to enforce the governing documents even when the CC&Rs are in evidence.
• Pleading and proof matter. A plaintiff or association that wants fees should be able to point to the specific governing-document provision it enforced.
• If an association is a party, check whether the claims against it or by it are really governing-document claims. A dropped CC&R claim did not support fees here.
• Judgment language that names a prevailing party does not replace a fee motion that proves entitlement.

The court described the disposition as turning on this record, and noted the absence of a trial transcript. It did not hold that title actions can never support section 5975 fees.

Related California Law

• California Davis-Stirling Act guide.
• California HOA case law: Nahrstedt, Lamden, Dolan-King.
• Ruffier v. Volcano Hills, another published decision enforcing Davis-Stirling procedure.
• All published California HOA decisions of 2025 and 2026.

Board Checklist

• Before filing or defending a dispute, identify the governing-document provision at issue and cite it in the pleading.
• Keep deed, plat and condominium plan questions separate from CC&R enforcement questions when you evaluate fee exposure.
• Do not assume a fee clause in the CC&Rs reaches every lawsuit between owners. Ask counsel.
• Make sure any proposed judgment language about fees is paired with a plan to prove entitlement in a fee motion.
• Check that your records of garage, parking and storage assignments match recorded deeds and condominium plans.

Frequently Asked Questions

Does the winning party in an HOA lawsuit always get attorney fees?

Not automatically. Under section 5975(c), fees go to the prevailing party in an action to enforce the governing documents. The court held a party must still prove the case qualifies.

What is the gravamen test?

It asks what the action is really about. If the main purpose is to enforce rights granted by the governing documents, section 5975(c) can apply. If it only relates to them, it does not.

Did the court say quiet title actions can never get section 5975 fees?

No. It held that this quiet title action, as presented on this record, rested on grant deeds and did not qualify.

Why did the CC&R fee clause not help?

The court found WCST did not show how its quiet title claim sought to enforce a CC&R right, which is the same reason the statutory claim failed.

Were the garages common area?

The trial court found they were owned in fee rather than as common area. The Court of Appeal affirmed that judgment in an earlier, unpublished appeal and did not revisit it here.

Is the opinion published?

Yes, it is marked certified for publication and was filed September 28, 2026.

Where This Comes From

We read the full opinion in WCST Enterprises, LLC v. Ling (No. G065236, filed September 28, 2026) as posted by the California courts website. No Cal.App.5th citation was available when we reviewed it. Statutory text is quoted as the opinion quotes it.

How APM Helps

Association Property Managers manages HOA and condominium communities in the San Francisco Bay Area from our Dublin office. See our California service area, browse every California state-law guide, or request a free proposal. Laws and documents differ by community, and we review your CC&Rs and bylaws when we build your proposal.

Legal disclaimer: This article is general information, not legal advice. Laws change and associations differ. Confirm the current statute text and how it applies to your governing documents with a licensed California attorney before acting.