Appeals Court Orders Money Judgment for Lynden Homeowners Charged Unlawful Fees

Washington’s Court of Appeals ruled that a Whatcom County trial court abused its discretion by refusing to issue a money judgment for Lynden homeowners after declaring that fees collected from them were unlawful.

The unanimous, published Division I decision directs the lower court to enter a money judgment in a dispute involving the Homestead Planned Residential Development, property owner 18 Paradise LLP and MJ Management LLC, doing business as Homestead Farms Golf Course.

The homeowners had spent a year unsuccessfully seeking refunds after winning a ruling invalidating a special assessment and monthly maintenance fee increases, according to the opinion.

The appeals court said leaving them without an enforceable money judgment would make that earlier victory hollow.

The panel nevertheless upheld dismissal of the homeowners’ Consumer Protection Act claim, finding they had not established the required public-interest impact. The opinion does not specify the amount of the money judgment.

The dispute concerns charges imposed in 2019, when MJ Management attempted to amend the development’s governing declaration to impose a one-time $83 assessment per resident and increase monthly maintenance fees from $36 to $93.

The opinion describes the higher monthly fee as reflecting cumulative annual increases of 5 percent dating to 1992.

Homestead covers roughly 250 acres in Lynden, with residential areas, a golf course and common open space. Its governing declaration gave residents access to the common space subject to monthly maintenance fees and allowed annual increases of up to 5 percent.

18 Paradise, which owns the common open space, entered a management agreement with MJ Management in 2017 to operate the golf course, maintain that space and collect fees.

Homeowners sued in May 2020, and the trial court later certified a class of lot and condominium owners subject to the governing declaration.

The trial court found that MJ Management needed express permission from 18 Paradise before imposing the assessment or increasing the fees, but had not obtained it. Following a 2024 bench trial, the court declared the amendments invalid.

That ruling did not produce refunds.

The homeowners sought additional court orders in March 2025, then filed further petitions in June and July seeking a money judgment for the unlawfully collected charges.

In November 2025, the trial court denied those petitions because the homeowners had not pleaded monetary claims or sought monetary determinations at trial.

The appeals court rejected that reasoning.

Under RCW 7.24.080, courts may grant further relief based on a declaratory judgment whenever necessary or proper. The panel explained that a money judgment can enforce rights established by an earlier declaration.

18 Paradise and MJ Management argued that the homeowners were bringing new monetary claims and that further fact-finding would be needed to determine offsetting obligations.

But the appellate panel said a declaratory judgment determines the parties’ rights. It found that 18 Paradise had cited no authority requiring the homeowners to litigate damages before seeking further relief based on that judgment.

“It is untenable to require the homeowners to bear the cost and burden of seeking an alternative forum to bring about the return of funds that the trial court declared MJ had unlawfully collected,” Judge Bill Bowman wrote.

The homeowners were unsuccessful on their separate consumer-protection argument.

They contended that a 2009 statute replaced the public-interest factors established in the Washington Supreme Court’s Hangman Ridge decision. The appeals court held that the statute offered another way to establish public-interest impact without eliminating the earlier test.

The panel found the homeowners had not met either standard. Among other deficiencies, it said they offered no evidence that the unlawful charges injured people outside the homeowner group or had the capacity to do so.

The court also declined to disturb rulings rejecting the homeowners’ effort to force 18 Paradise to give up ownership of the common open space.

Neither side received attorney fees on appeal because each prevailed in part. Judges Leonard Feldman and Lori Smith joined Bowman’s opinion.