Allocation/Costs/Prevailing Party: Wine Cellar Gets Hit With $28,659.50 Contract Damages Plus Prejudgment Interest PLUS $36,061.50 In Contractual Attorney’s Fees

Plaintiff Got Unqualified Win, With No Apportionment Needed; Two Winning Defendants Failed To Timely File For Costs.

     This case stirred our curiosity, because it involves Veris Cellars, which appears to be a very nice winery located in the Paso Robles area in San Luis Obispo County. However, no matter who the litigant, beware that if you lose a case with a contractual fees clause, even if it isn’t that big of a case, you can get tagged with much more in fee exposure than the base dispute was about.

     In Armet’s Landscape, Inc. v. Bethel Properties, LLC, Case No. B241956 (2d Dist., Div. 6 Dec. 4, 2013) (unpublished), defendants hired a landscape company to install landscaping and related improvements at Veris Cellars. Some progress payments were made, but landscape plaintiff claimed the contractual bargain was not met, suing for the balance and filing a mechanic’s lien against the winery property. The lower court found that landscape plaintiff performed and entered judgment only against Veris Cellars, finding no basis to find two other defendant parties (including the owner of the property) liable. However, no defense judgment was entered in favor of the two prevailing defendants, and they did not file costs memoranda. The trial court did award $36,061.50 in attorney’s fees in favor of plaintiff and against Veris, based on a compensatory award of $28,659.50 plus prejudgment interest.

     Bacchus figure seated on barrel.  1560 – 84.  Library of Congress.

     Everything was affirmed on appeal.

     The prevailing defendants claimed they were entitled to routine costs against landscape company. True, true, but the costs claimed were waived because neither filed timely costs memoranda. Defendants balked, arguing that the trial court’s failure to enter a defense judgment prevented them from filing costs memos. No go, said the appellate court, the appropriate remedy is to timely file costs memos and then go from there. Waiver, waiver, waiver. (Hydratec, Inc. v. Sun Valley 260 Orchard & Vineyard Co., 223 Cal.App.3d 924, 929 (1990).)

     That brought the appellate court to the fee award. Although the fee clause language was ambiguous, witnesses supplemented with testimony which allowed the fee award to be affirmed based on the broad intent of the fees clause. Plaintiff landscaper won an unqualified victory, and no apportionment was necessary because the fees on the unsuccessful common count and mechanic’s lien foreclosure claim were still interrelated to the successful contractually-based recovery. No apportionment was necessary under the circumstances.