(a)The covenants and restrictions in the declaration shall be enforceable equitable servitudes, unless unreasonable, and shall inure to the benefit of and bind all owners of separate interests in the development. Unless the declaration states otherwise, these servitudes may be enforced by any owner of a separate interest or by the association, or by both.
(b)A governing document other than the
declaration may be enforced by the association against an owner of a separate interest or by an owner of a separate interest against the association.
(c)In an action to enforce the governing documents, the prevailing party shall be awarded reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.
Notes of Decisions
Almanor Lakeside Villas Owners Ass'n. v. Carson, 246 Cal. App. 4th 761 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 7× “Cross-motions for Attorney’s Fees and Costs The parties moved for attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to the fees provision of the Davis-Stirling Act, Civil Code section 5975. Civil Code section 5975 awards attorney’s fees and costs to the prevailing party in an action to enforce…”
In re: Gold Strike Heights Homeowners Ass'n (9th Cir. BAP 2018).
· cites it 12× “Thereafter, Trustee moved for attorneys’ fees under Cal. Civ. Code § 5975 which authorizes fees to a prevailing party in a lawsuit relating to the enforcement of rights and interests under the Covenants, Restrictions, and other documents by which a homeowners association…”
Koehler v. Prinz CA3 (Cal. Ct. App. 2025).
· cites it 9× “Koehler argued that the judgment was void and that it was voidable, claiming that the judgment “is voidable because the trial court acted in excess of its jurisdiction when it implicitly found that Elizabeth Prinz had standing to claim an ownership interest in the statutory fee…”
Mascaro v. Brown CA2/6 (Cal. Ct. App. 2023).
· cites it 3× “) Civil Code section 5975 Attorney’s fees were also properly ordered pursuant to the 7 Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act (Civ.”
Schuchmacher v. Rockpointe Homeowners Assn. CA2/3 (Cal. Ct. App. 2023).
· cites it 3× “) The former directors do not dispute that the applicability of Civil Code section 5975, subdivision (c) to Schuchmacher’s breach of fiduciary duty and civil conspiracy claims was presented to, and decided by, this court in Schuchmacher I, or that resolution of the issue was…”
Colyear v. Rolling Hills Cmty. Assn. of Rancho Palos Verdes (Cal. Ct. App. 2024).
· cites it 3× “04 in attorney fees against all defendants pursuant to Civil Code section 5975. Section 5975 provides in relevant part that covenants and restrictions “may be enforced by any owner of 8 In light of our conclusion, we do not address the Association’s alternative argument that…”
Bauer v. Likhterman CA4/3 (Cal. Ct. App. 2026).
· cites it 3× “) 2 The trial court also admitted into evidence a later version of the CC&Rs but Likhterman has not included it in the record on appeal.”
Roslyn Lane, LLC v. Cave Street Homeowners Assn. CA4/1 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 2× “Code, § 1354) also provides for awards of attorney fees and costs to prevailing parties in actions to enforce declarations of covenants, conditions, and restrictions or other governing documents of homeowners associations.”
Jones v. Goodman (Cal. Ct. App. 2020).
· cites it 2× “) Civil Code section 5975 deals with the enforceability of covenants and restrictions in a common interest 17 See footnote 15, ante.”
Smart Corner Owners Assn. v. CJUF Smart Corner LLC (Cal. Ct. App. 2021).
· cites it 2× “10 It argued Branches was not dispositive of its right to comply with a member consent requirement through ratification, because the court in Branches considered only the narrow issue of whether the arbitrator had exceeded his powers by violating an “unwaivable” right of…”
Cal. Civil Code § 5975(c): 1 case
Schuchmacher v. Rockpointe Homeowners Assn. CA2/3 (Cal. Ct. App. 2023).
“) The former directors do not dispute that the applicability of Civil Code section 5975, subdivision (c) to Schuchmacher’s breach of fiduciary duty and civil conspiracy claims was presented to, and decided by, this court in Schuchmacher I, or that resolution of the issue was…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.