Appellate Court Orders Money Judgment for Lynden Homestead Homeowners
A divided panel of the Washington Court of Appeals has ruled that a Whatcom County trial court erred in withholding a monetary award from Homestead Planned Residential Development residents, despite having previously invalidated key fees they had paid.
The decision, issued unanimously and designated for publication, instructs the lower court to issue a binding money judgment in favor of the homeowners and two property owner entities—18 Paradise LLP and MJ Management LLC, which operates the Homestead Farms Golf Course within the development.
The dispute centers on fees introduced in 2019 by MJ Management, which sought to amend the development’s governing declaration. Those changes included a one-time $83 assessment per resident and an increase in monthly maintenance fees from $36 to $93. According to court records, the higher monthly rate followed a pattern of cumulative 5 percent annual hikes dating back to 1992.
Homestead spans about 250 acres in Lynden, encompassing residential lots, condominium units, a golf course, and shared open spaces. Under the declaration, residents were entitled to use common areas in exchange for monthly fees, with built-in authority for yearly increases up to 5 percent. In 2017, 18 Paradise—owner of the common areas—contracted with MJ Management to manage the golf course, maintain shared grounds, and collect fees.
A class of property owners was certified in 2020 after the homeowners filed suit, challenging the validity of the new assessments and fee hikes. The trial court later concluded that MJ Management had overstepped its authority by implementing the changes without first securing explicit approval from 18 Paradise. Following a bench trial in 2024, the court declared the amendments unlawful—but stopped short of ordering refunds.
Frustrated by the lack of monetary relief, the homeowners returned to court in early 2025, filing petitions in March, June, and July seeking a formal money judgment. In November of that year, the trial court declined the request, reasoning that the homeowners had not raised monetary claims during the original trial or included them in their pleadings.
The appellate court disagreed, citing RCW 7.24.080, which authorizes courts to grant additional relief following a declaratory judgment when appropriate. The panel emphasized that a money judgment serves to enforce rights already adjudicated, not to litigate new claims.
Both 18 Paradise and MJ Management contended that awarding refunds would require additional factual determinations and consideration of possible offsets. Yet the appeals court found no precedent demanding a separate damages phase, noting that the parties’ obligations had already been clarified in the declaratory ruling.
“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,” wrote Judge Bill Bowman.
While the court affirmed dismissal of the homeowners’ separate claim under the Consumer Protection Act—finding insufficient evidence of broader public impact—the ruling leaves open the possibility of reimbursement for fees collected since 2019. The final dollar amount of the judgment remains to be determined.
The appellants argued that a 2009 statute superseded the public-interest factors outlined in the Washington Supreme Court’s Hangman Ridge decision. The appeals court ruled that the statute provides an alternative means of demonstrating public-interest impact without nullifying the prior test.
The panel determined that the homeowners failed to satisfy either standard. Among other issues, the court noted they provided no evidence that the unlawful charges harmed individuals outside the homeowner group or possessed the capacity to do so.
The court also declined to overturn rulings that rejected the homeowners' attempt to compel 18 Paradise to relinquish 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.