Award Of $101,154 Out Of Requested $337,180 In Fees Affirmed On Appeal.
Plaintiff prevailed on both breach of lease and fraudulent transfer claims against the defense, with the lease having a fees clause allowing for recovery of fees geared to “enforce” the contract. When it came time to move for attorney’s fees, plaintiff sought $337,180 for all efforts—both breach of lease and fraudulent conveyance work effort. However, the lower court only awarded $101,154 based on its perception that 30% of the time was spent on the lease claim versus the fraudulent transfer claim that it believed was non-compensable from a fee recovery standpoint.
That allocation held up against plaintiff’s challenges on appeal in 330 South Fair Oaks Ave., LLC v. De La Flor, Case No. B253991 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Aug. 3, 2015) (unpublished).
Although arguing that the lease and fraudulent transfer work were intertwined in nature, the appellate court did not buy the argument, given that the fees clause only allowed for “on the contract” work which would exclude a tort claim like that brought under the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (UFTA). Because no other statutory basis was cited, the lower court did not err by failing to award more fees for fraudulent transfer claim work.
BLOG UNDERVIEW—This result is actually consistent with two other unpublished decisions we surveyed in the past, finding that the UFTA does not have language allowing for recovery of attorney’s fees. For those of you wanting to see those prior decisions, see Justice Ikola’s unpublished 4/3 DCA decision in Palacio Del Mar HOA v. McMahon (our December 2, 2008 post) and the 4/1 DCA’s unpublished decision in Levine v. McAvoy (our August 3, 2012 post).