Entitlement, Apportionment, and Amount Challenges Rejected.
In Sinclair v. Katakis, Case No. F060497 (5th Dist. Jan. 23, 2013) (unpublished), $750,000 in attorney’s fees (out of a requested $1.2 million) and $33,141.67 in costs were awarded against defendants in a battle involving CC&Rs as well as notes and deeds of trust with contractual fee provisions. That prompted defendants to appeal, and they did no better at the appellate level except incur more exposure for fees to the other side on appeal.
Among other things, defendants argued that the other side had a disqualifying interest that precluded a fee recovery. However, the defense waived this claim by not bringing a disqualification motion at the lower court level.
Fee entitlement was clear under Civil Code section 1354 (applicable to CC&Rs) and Civil Code section 1717 (contractual fee clauses). Based on the pleadings on file, plaintiff had intertwined all claims together such that no apportionment of time was necessary. Also, where a nonsignatory plaintiff as here loses to a signatory defendant and plaintiff would have been entitled to fees, the signatory defendant obtains fees under Reynolds Metals (one of our Leading Cases).
Finally, the challenges to the “inflated” nature of the award were dismissed, especially given that the lower court only awarded 62.5% of the requested fees and this recovery was conferred after a vigorously litigated 36-day trial.