In Ritter & Ritter, Inc. v. Churchill Condominium Ass'n (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 103, homeowners sued their association after it denied their request to repair certain "slab penetrations" -- basically holes in concrete to allow for plumbing and piping. These holes were supposed to be fireproofed, as required at the time of original construction, but never were. Odors prompted an investigation; the homeowners' expert thought that the holes constituted a fire hazard and should be "filled or fire-stopped." (Ritter & Ritter, supra, 166 Cal.App.4th at p. 110.) The homeowners wanted the association to undertake the expensive repair work, the association denied their request. And, to add insult to injury, the association required the homeowners to spend their own money to fill holes adjacent to their own units and began assessing fines to make them do so. The homeowners sued, seeking to make the association fill all the slap holes in the building plus asked for damages based on the diminution of value to their units, the association counter-sued to require the homeowners to fill their own holes and for $ 77,000 in unpaid fines. The result in Ritter & Ritter was a somewhat mixed bag. A jury returned a verdict to the effect that the homeowners won for their claim that the CC&Rs had been breached, that the association had breached its fiduciary duty to them, that the association had been negligent, and that the association should not prevail on its cross-complaint. But -- the jury also found the homeowners partially negligent and awarded them the stingy sum of $ 4,620 as economic losses. Further, after a jnov motion, the trial court issued a judgment on the equitable claims. The judgment required a meeting, but more than that it ordered the association to fill up the holes adjacent to the homeowners' units at its expense. Most importantly, the homeowners didn't get their request for an injunction requiring the association to pay for filling in the holes in the entire building.The homeowners in Ritter & Ritter thus didn't get everything they wanted. So what? The trial judge still ordered the association to pay the homeowners' attorney fees as the prevailing party, and that order was affirmed. As against the argument that the homeowners didn't get everything that they wanted (the filling of all the holes), the Ritter court held that they still "accomplished" their "main litigation objective. . . . While correction of the entire structure might have been a litigation 'dream,' it cannot be considered the main litigation objective." (Ritter & Ritter, supra, 166 Cal.App.4th at p. 127.)