Fee Clause Interpretation: 4/3 DCA Reverses Denial Of Fees To Defendant Because Trial Court Made No Finding Whether Defendant Was A Landlord And A Party To A Lease

Plaintiffs’ Lawsuit For Various Counts Relating To A One-Year Lease Did Arise Under Broad Language In The Fees Clause.

               In S&S Engineering and Construction v. Van Swae, Case No. G062352 (4^th Dist., Div. 3 Jan. 13, 2025) (unpublished), a lower court’s order denying a fees motion to a possible landlord under a one-year lease was reversed, because the broad “arising out of the agreement” language did encompass fraud and unjust enrichment claims.  (Xuereb v. Marcus & Millichap, Inc., 3 Cal.App.4^th 1338, 1343-1344 (1992); Lerner v. Ward, 13 Cal.App.4^th 155, 158-160 (1993).)  However, the matter had to be remanded to determine if the defendant, assertedly in a trustee capacity, truly was a landlord and a party to the lease—if so, fees needed to be awarded; and, if not, the fee motion needed to be denied.

Justice Motoike authored the opinion on appeal.