We are not sure that our local appellate court was equitably happy with the result it reached, but it certainly felt the law was followed.
In Le v. Crawford, Case No. G046271 et al. (4th Dist., Div. 3 Jan. 31, 2013) (unpublished), defendant did receive a $92,000 judgment for unpaid work in constructing a swimming pool, an area strictly regulated under very tough consumer protectionist provisions governing swimming pool contracts as far as substance and formatting. The trial court denied awarding any attorney’s fees to defendant.
On appeal, the appellate court decided — in a 3-0 decision authored by Justice Thompson (the most recent appointee to the court) — that defendant was only entitled to unrelated swimming pool work to the tune of $24,000 because the swimming pool contract was unenforceable under the consumer protectionist scheme.
The lower court denied fees on the basis that defendant was awarded judgment based on a quantum meruit theory, rather than breach of contract. Business & Professions Code section 7168 does allow mandatory recovery to a prevailing party under the swimming pool contract area, but the lack of an enforceable written contract doomed the fees request. In affirming the fee denial and paring back the judgment, the appellate court wished it could have gone another way on equitable grounds, but chose to follow the legislative option to “penalize” a noncompliant swimming pool contractor.
Pool. Estate of Mrs. Woodward Vietor, Palm Beach, Florida. Samuel H. Gottscho, photographer. 1938. Library of Congress.