Sheldon v. Nikliborc
Filed 8/31/06 Sheldon v. Nikliborc CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
| THEODORA SHELDON, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. MARION NIKLIBORC et al., Defendants and Respondents. | E038909 (Super.Ct.No. RIC393647) OPINION |
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Stephen D. Cunnison, Judge. Affirmed.
Sabbah & Mackoul and Connie L. Younger for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Fiore, Racobs & Powers, Peter E. Racobs and Amanda N. Owen, for Defendants and Respondents.
Plaintiff and appellant Theodora Sheldon (plaintiff) appeals a trial court's order awarding defendants and respondents De Anza Estates Homeowners Association, Inc. (the association), Marion Nikliborc, Douglas Vierra, Michael Riggs, Genoveva Rodriguez, Vickie Schlone, and Guardian Preferred Properties, Inc. (collectively, defendants) attorney fees under Civil Code section 1354, subdivision (c).[1] We affirm the order.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On May 27, 2003, plaintiff, along with homeowner Jennie Ann Guida (collectively, plaintiffs), filed a complaint against defendants alleging causes of action for intentional misrepresentation, fraud and deceit, a violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200 et seq., fraudulent conversion, declaratory relief, and injunctive relief (the complaint). Essentially, plaintiffs alleged that defendants improperly appointed themselves to be the board of directors of the association, rather than holding an election. The complaint further alleged that defendants subsequently misrepresented themselves as the board of directors, and that they did not have the legal authority to manage the association, to increase and collect association fees, or to initiate foreclosure proceedings. Plaintiffs alleged that these actions were in violation of what was permissible under the governing documents of the association (the governing documents), and requested that the court stop defendants from abusing their â€
