Defense Failed To Oppose Fee Motion, So Excessiveness Objection Waived.
In Corrigan v. Kent, Case No. B247707 (2d Dist., Div. 6 Nov. 12, 2014) (unpublished), plaintiffs sued defendant based on a large oak tree obstructing plaintiff’s view of the ocean based on a violation of Santa Barbara City view ordinance No. 5220. On the date set for trial, after the defense had certain RFAs deemed admitted upon failing to answer them, the parties signed a settlement stipulation and judgment by which defendant agreed to reduce the oak tree height by a supervising arborist. The settlement also contained a fee provision designating plaintiffs as the prevailing party. However, after the defense apparently reneged, plaintiffs obtained an order enforcing the settlement agreement and judgment. Then, plaintiffs moved to recoup fees. The lower court awarded them $27,524.50 under the RFA “costs of proof” sanctions provision and the settlement agreement fees clause.
The defense got no relief on appeal in a 3-0 opinion authored by Presiding Justice Gilbert.
The fees clause in the settlement agreement established fee entitlement, so the appellate court did not have to even consider the RFA basis for entitlement. The defense claim that fees were excessive did not resonate because defendant never opposed the fee motion or raised particular objections before the lower court, meaning the excessive contention was forfeited on appeal. (City of Santa Paula v. Narula, 114 Cal.App.4th 485, 494 (2003).) Also, the appellate court agreed that plaintiffs were entitled to more fees for winning on appeal, but that such a claim should be initially raised in the trial court—consistent with many cases recognizing lower courts are better prepared than appellate courts to get into the nitty-gritty of fee substantiation/reasonableness issues. (Palmer v. Shawback, 17 Cal.App.4th 296, 301 (1993); Citizens Assn. for Sensible Development of Bishop Area v. County of Inyo, 172 Cal.App.3d 151, 176 (1985).)