Fee Award Was $50,000, A Contractually Capped Amount, Even Though Defendants’ Counsel Expended $73,865 In Fees.
In SM 10000 Property, LLC v. Chakchay, Case No. B350752 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Sept. 9, 2026) (unpublished), plaintiff landlord filed an unlawful detainer action against defendant signatory tenant and two other non-signatory tenants named as occupants. The lower court found the three-day notice was invalid, entering judgment for defendants. Because there were contractual fee provisions, defendants moved for $50,000 in fees rather than the $73,865 actually expended by attorneys based on a contractual “cap,” with plaintiff opposing on various grounds. The trial judge granted the request in full. The lower court ordered the initial merits judgment amended to reflect the fee grant. Plaintiff appealed.
The 2/5 DCA affirmed. At the outset, the appellate court determined that plaintiff’s appeal from the amended judgment was too late for a merits review of the judgment but was timely for review of the fee order. This result occurred given that plaintiff should have appealed the prior merits judgment, with the appeal from the amended judgment with the fees inclusion not salvaging a review of the merits. (Torres v. City of San Diego, 154 Cal.App.4th 214, 222 (2007); Dakota Payphone, LLC v. Alcaraz, 192 Cal.App.th 493, 505 (2011).) Plaintiff argued that the fee award should not have been entered in favor of the defendant non-signatories, but this argument was rejected because (1) they were named as defendants in the UD action such that they were third party beneficiaries of the fees clause, and (2) there is no per se rule barring non-signatories on tort claims from receiving fee recovery under a fees clause given that an unlawful detainer action often sounds in either contract or tort. (Hom v. Petrou, 67 Cal.App.5th 459, 467-470, 471-472 (2021).) Defendant then argued that the lower court erroneously ignored block billed and vague entries, but the appellate panel found no prejudicial error since even if there was 40 hours of excessive or improper time, the lower court had a basis to award $50,000 in fees given the total billings came to a total of $73,865.