Dueling Fee Motions Really Come Close To Negating Each Other.
Iota Five, LLC v. Dobron, Case No. G050738 (4th Dist., Div. 3 May 11, 2015) (unpublished) was a case where there were fee clauses in guaranties, with the two defendants—represented by the same counsel—gaining a complete victory on a sham guaranty defense as to one party but not as to another (with a jury finding the true guarantor was liable for $1.638 million to the bank versus nothing as to the other defendant obligor having the benefit of anti-deficiency protections). Winning defendant obtained an award of $504,182 in fees, while winning bank as against the true guarantor defendant garnered an award of $462,870.72.
Both sides appealed on the merits and on the fee awards, but all was affirmed on appeal.
Losing plaintiff against the winning obligor defendant failed to separately appeal the fee award, which was dispositive. However, losing plaintiff lost on the merits: although there were defects in the initial notice and supporting papers, these were cured by continuances or failure to file supplemental papers in response. The fees amount was reasonable because everyone had due process opportunities to have their say.
The other fees prevailing party, the plaintiff winning against the losing true guarantor, had no change in fees because both courts found that all of the sham guaranty time spent along the way—with bank winning as to the losing defendant—was properly awarded. The trial court’s “evenhanded approach” on fees was sustained on appeal, close to a “wash.”