Wife Only Cited to a Family Code Provision Relating to Enforcement of an Existing Child Support Order, Not a Modification Situation. In Bennett v. Foss, Case Nos. A137452/A138342 (1st Dist., Div. 1 Apr. 29, 2014) (unpublished), ex-wife did obtain reversal of a child support modification order on appeal. However, in the lower court, […]
Defense Costs Were Properly Paid by Carrier Until Subsequent Investigation Showed No Coverage Potential. Insured must be breathing somewhat easier after the appellate result in Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London v. Mestmaker, Case No. F066016 (5th Dist. Apr. 29, 2014) (unpublished), which reviewed a lower judge order directing the insured to pay back
Only Routine Costs for Filing/Motion Fees for Nonfictitously-Named Defendant Was Properly Assessed Against Plaintiff. The appellate court in Lashgari v. Chen, Case No. D063300 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Apr. 29, 2014) (unpublished), on appeal, deleted $435 from recoverable costs in filing/motion fees paid by two fictitiously named counterparts of a nonfictitious defendant as
The Result Was Plaintiff Was Liable for $46,115.76 In Postjudgment Costs/Expert Fees After Deduction Of $8,620 Net Jury Award. CCP § 998 offers that are rejected but not beaten at trial can be very cruel reversals of fortune even if a positive jury verdict is obtained. In this personal injury case, plaintiff obtained
Looks Like Decades Trust Disputes Are Drawing To An End. Holt v. Denholm, Case Nos. G045496 and G046293 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Apr. 28, 2014) (unpublished)—both authored by Presiding Justice O’Leary–are two appeals involving cross-over probate and Civil Code section 1717 issues in a long-running battle between different sides of a family trust—pitting a
Loser Below Cannot Be 1021.5 Successful Party. Prospector blowing on pan of fine dirt which contains particles of gold. Russell Lee, photographer. 1940. Library of Congress. This is what we would call a chutzpah appeal. A business purchasing gold from individuals protested County of Department of Weight and Measures’ claims that the
The Arbitrator’s Award Assessing Fees, Costs, And Expenses Ran Only Against The Attorney, Not The Client The highly deferential standard of review given to an arbitrator’s award, encompassing as it does the arbitrator’s resolution of questions of law or fact, largely explains the result in Kaufman v. Diskeeper Corporation, B247315 (2nd Dist. Div. 4
It Also Has A Good Discussion of the Difference Between Holdings and Dicta. Although not involving fee issues, we had to share two aspects of Justice Yegan’s eloquently written opinion in Marriage of Boswell, Case No. B249141 (2d Dist., Div. 6 Apr. 28, 2014) (published). The first aspect was a summary of
Feb. 2014 The Business Lawyer Article by Professor Grundfest Shows Fees Obtained By Class Counsel and Defense Counsel in Federal Securities Class Actions. Joseph A. Grundfest has written an interesting article in the February 2014 edition of the ABA’s The Business Lawyer, calling for a reexamination of the basic presumption of reliance and
Agreements Were Unambiguous, Not Allowing For Fee Recovery. Where contracts with no extrinsic conflicts are involved, appellate courts will construe agreements by their terms—no fees clause, no fee recovery.. That is what happened in Sznyter v. Spun.com, Inc., Case No. D061832 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Apr. 25, 2014) (unpublished). The basics
