Dissenting Justice Would Have Required Parsing Out of Fees on Separate Contracts.
In Universal Church v. United Broadway Real Estate Co., LLC, Case No. B233904 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Feb. 11, 2013) (unpublished), landlord appealed when tenant won a hotly contested fair market calculation dispute under a lease, with the trial court awarding $693,057 in fees (out of a requested $832,425) even though several contractual agreements were involved.
The fee fixing was affirmed. Landlord challenged that the prevailing party status was determined after the trial, but no error was found because both parties had raised the issue in the litigation pleadings throughout so that no separately noticed motion was necessary. (This is especially a common occurrence in bench trials and arbitrations, in our experience, with the prevailing party determination made along with the merits decision–with the fixing of the amount of fees through a postjudgment motion proceeding.)
Then, the majority of the appellate court panel found no allocation was necessary because the issues under the agreements were inextricably intertwined. However, Justice Mosk, both concurring and dissenting, did believe that the agreements were truly separate and that apportionment of work under each was appropriate.