Author name: Marc Alexander

Probate: Interim Fees Awardable Out Of Trust Were Compensable To Attorney Assisting Trustee On Appeal

Cases: Probate

No Appellate Costs Awarded Per Se, But Probate Court Has Broad Powers To Award Attorneys Assisting Trusts Even On An Interim Basis.             A beneficiary/removed trustee was flummoxed that the probate court approved the successor trustee’s request for payment of interim attorney’s fees and costs incurred in representing the trust on appeal out of the […]

Appealability: $392,172 Fee Award Against Losing Party Because No Appeal Was Taken From Fee Order Or Amended Judgment

Cases: Appealability

Since Entitlement Not Decided Under Original Judgment, Appeal From It Only Did Not Preserve Challenge To Subsequent Fee Ruling.             Unfortunately, Clymer v. Elder, Case No. E072525 (4th Dist., Div.  2 Oct. 13, 2020) (unpublished) is another appellate case result which counsels one to appeal post-judgment orders or amended judgments where an original judgment did

Private Attorney General: Trial Court’s Dismissal Of Validation Action Based On Lack Of Subject Matter Jurisdiction Did Not Entitle Victor To Private Attorney General Fees

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

Losing City Was Free to Go Forward With The Sale, So The Victory Was Pyrrhic.              In City of Upland v. The Inland Oversight Committee, Case No. E073768 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Oct. 13, 2020) (unpublished), City sought through a validation action to validate its agreement to sell part of Memorial Park to San Antonio

Fee Clause Interpretation: Attorney Raising Release As An Affirmative Defense To Client Contract/Tort Complaint Not Entitled To Prevailing Party Fees Under Terms Of Fees Clause

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation

Mountain Air Supported Denial Of Fees To Former Attorney.             In Thomas v. Lin, Case Nos. B291508/B292496 (2d Dist., Div. 2 Oct. 13, 2020) (unpublished), clients brought contract/tort actions arising from defendant attorney’s professional misconduct.  Clients entered into a written settlement release agreement, with one containing a fees clause encompassing “an action brought to enforce

Arbitration, POOF!: By Invalidating Portions Of An Arbitration Award And Remanding On Other Issues, Substantial Attorney’s Fees And Costs Award Against Arbitration Claimant/Counter-Respondent Also Sent Back For A Revisit

Cases: Arbitration, Cases: POOF!

Principal Reasons For Reversal Were That Certain Aspects Of The Employment Agreement Violated Business And Professions Code Section 16600.             Claimant/counter-claim respondent, former employee, was hammered pretty hard in an employment arbitration when the arbitrator rejected his claim for a $300,000 deferred bonus, found for employer on a counterclaim to the tune of $652,243 for

Receivers, Special Fee Shifting Statutes: County’s Enforcement Fees And Costs In Obtaining Receivership Appointment And Remediating Hazardous Property Conditions Are Not Entitled To Super-Priority Status Along With Receivership Expenses

Cases: Receivers, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Claims Of Competing Lienholders Had To Be Considered With Respect To Division Of Property Sale Proceeds.             In County of Sonoma v. U.S. Bank N.A., Case Nos. A155837/A157245 (1st Dist., Div. 1 Oct. 8, 2020) (published), the appellate court affirmed a lower court’s order conferring super-priority status to property sale proceeds on a receiver’s financial

Appealability: Plaintiff Failing To Appeal Post-Dismissal Fee Order And Amended Judgment Resulted In An Inability To Challenge The Attorney’s Fees Order

Cases: Appealability

Appellate Court Had No Jurisdiction To Consider Any Fee Challenges.             In Miller v. Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC, Case No. B295819 (2d Dist., Div. 2 Oct. 7, 2020) (unpublished), plaintiff appealed a judgment of dismissal after losing a demurrer without leave on all claims.  Later, prevailing defendants moved for fees, a motion which was granted

Consumer Statutes, Reasonableness Of Fees, Section 1717: $284,482.48 Attorney’s Fee/Costs Awards, Allocated Between Two Groups Of Defendants, Affirmed Under Consumer Statutes and Section 1717

Cases: Consumer Statutes, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees, Cases: Section 1717

Inadequate Record, Discretionary Apportionment Principles, And Failure To Show Abuse Of Discretion Led To Affirmance Of Awards.             Defendants apparently were shocked by a trial judge awarding a combined $284,482.48 in attorney’s fees and costs against two groups of defendants and in favor of a plaintiff in a case alleging that defendants failed to disclose

Civil Rights: $242,672 Attorney’s Fees/Costs Award Under Disability Statutes Reversed As A Matter Of Law

Cases: Civil Rights

No Violation of Law Shown Under Various Disability Statutes, With Catalyst And Prelitigation Demand Contentions Not Helping Either.             Because construction/website disability claims are flooding the federal and state courts, Skaff v. Rio Nido Roadhouse, Case Nos. A152462/A153606 (1st Dist., Div. 1 Oct. 5, 2020) (published) is a case showing that the judiciary is eyeballing

Reasonableness Of Fees, Substantiation Of Reasonableness Of Fees: $2,135,688.75 Fee Award Affirmed On Appeal Based On Detailed Supporting Substantiation For Litigation Spanning Five Years And Lots Of Activity By The Other Side

Cases: Reasonableness of Fees, Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees

Substantiation And Reasonableness Challenges Rebuffed On Appeal.             In San Vicente Investment, LP v. Trammell Crow Santa Monica Development, LLC, Case No. B296147 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Oct. 1, 2020) (unpublished), sophisticated litigants battled it out over five years in litigation involving lots of law and motion, discovery, and then two rounds of largely successful

Scroll to Top