Court of Appeal Finds No Prejudice In the Sequence of Entry of the Fee Award.
The Automobile Sales Finance Act (ASFA), in Civil Code section 2983.4, has a mandatory fee-shifting provision by which the prevailing party in any action on a contract or purchase subject to the ASFA must be awarded fees, “regardless of whether the action is instituted by the seller, holder or buyer.” The next case deals with the ASFA fee-shifting section and a challenge to the way in which the interim fee award was entered by the lower court.
Williams v. Ablakhad, Case No. B204042 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Dec. 10, 2008) (unpublished) dealt with a thorny procedural morass of a case. A jury found in favor of buyer on her ASFA claims, against buyer on some other claims, and “hung” on reaching a decision on the remainder of buyer’s claims. The trial court declared a mistrial on the latter claims. The jury also found for seller on his contract and conversion cross-claims. Buyer filed a judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) motion against the cross-claim verdicts, but the trial court sua sponte ordered a retrial—a determination reversed in a prior appeal by which the appellate court ordered consideration of buyer’s JNOV motion and setting the case for retrial on buyer’s unresolved claims. On remand, the trial court initially awarded buyer ASFA attorney’s fees of $28,591.50. The lower court subsequently granted buyer’s JNOV motion (getting rid of seller’s verdict wins), with buyer dismissing the remainder of her claims that had been ordered to retrial. Final judgment was entered, and seller appealed.
Buyer prevailed on appeal. Seller’s main challenge to the fee award was that the lower court prematurely awarded fees to buyer after the prior successful appeal but before a final judgment had been entered and a prevailing party determined.
The Court of Appeal determined that any sequencing error was nonprejudicial in nature. “Nothing had changed between the court’s interim order and its entry of final judgment, other than [buyer] having secured even greater relief in her favor. Accordingly, [seller] has not shown any abuse of the court’s discretion in awarding the attorney fees in this case. (PLCM Group, Inc. v. Drexler (2002) 22 Cal.4th 1084, 1095.)” (Slip Opn., at p. 11.)