4DCA Division 3 Oral Argument - 2026/08/18 - Aug 18, 2026

argument

4DCA Division 3 Oral Argument - 2026/08/18

California Fourth District Court of Appeal, Division Three 1h 51m 7 chapters transcribed 1 month ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What are the opening procedures and courtroom rules for this oral argument?

Unknown 6:26

Oh, straight voicemails.

Unknown 8:43

Good morning. Once again, welcome to the court. Just a reminder, no eating or chewing gum, no drinking liquids while you're back there. But for counsel, when you come up and present, there is water provided for you. This podium is adjustable in height. So those that are taller than me, there's a button right here. Hold to raise it up. Just hold it up to raise it. Currently it's recording, so pick up any conversation in the back room. Restrooms and water fountain is outside, opposite end if you haven't found it yet. And we have a panel change, but it's really brief, so don't stick up too long. Any questions? Thank you.

Unknown 11:17

Thank you.

Unknown 14:37

when you

Unknown 22:22

All rise. Court of Appeal, 4th and 5th Street, Division 3. Announce it. Good morning, everyone. We have two panels this morning, three matters. I am Justice Motonike. To my right is Justice Moore, and to my left is Justice Scott. The first matter we'll call is WCST Enterprises vs. Sling.

Unknown 23:09

Whenever appellant's ready, you may proceed.

Fred Fardis 23:14

May it please the court, I'd like to reserve three minutes of my time for rebuttal, if that's possible. Certainly. We're here today because Mr. Loomis would have liked to have used his adjacent garage space and to enforce his legal rights. under the CC&Rs and the condominium plan. The only way that you can enforce those rights is by the analysis of the CC&Rs, which don't mention the garage space, other than to say it's not common area. And by looking at the condominium plan on page one of condominium plan, you will see that the garage spaces are conveyed to the homeowner in fee title, which is unusual in today's world. But back in 1965, when these documents were drafted, this is kind of a unique way to do things, which are complicated by the fact that

Fred Fardis 24:22

This is a seaside community with boat slips, and they're trying to accommodate the developer's intent to have an adjacent garage space. But I think this case is very, very simple. Judge J. Leo Cruz basically said, this is a very simple case. I don't know we're here, but the problem that we have here is that at the very beginning of the trial, the court mentioned on the record that clearly that a garage is not a common space. and that he's proceeding on the issue of the fee title. So the question is, how does the court reach that conclusion without analyzing the facts of the CC&Rs and the condominium plan? Because in the grant deeds, And I would like to just renew my motion to augment the record because I wasn't sure if everything was before the court.

Fred Fardis 25:26

And when I was preparing my briefs, I realized that it would be more helpful for the court to see those documents. So I would refer those documents. But nowhere on the grantee does it mention common area. Nowhere does it mention fee title. So when the court and opposing counsel say that there was no analysis of the governing documents, that's simply incorrect. And under 5975, enforcement of the governing documents require a award of attorney's fees when there's a designation that one party is the prevailing party. And that was the reason why we put it into the judgment so that there was a determination that since we won a trial, we're entitled to attorney's fees. And while paragraphs 12 and 13 of the judgment may look a little bit inconsistent, but they're not because there is a determination that we're the prevailing party.

Fred Fardis 26:33

And at the May 3rd hearing, when the judgment was discussed by the court before its entry, counsel at that time did not object to paragraphs 12, did not object to paragraphs 13. And I believe that there was concession that since we won the trial, we were automatically entitled to attorney's fees. And the objection to the attorney's fees was not raised during the motion when it was too late, because when the judgment was entered, the judge clearly made a a determination that Loomis was the prevailing party. The court in its ruling on the motion said there was zero basis to award attorney's fees, and I believe that's clearly a misstatement of the law because the facts of this case, while simple, clearly show that the only way to obtain rights to 38 is through the governing documents.