Author name: Marc Alexander

Appealability, Family Law, Sanctions: $5,000 Sanctions Award Against Ex-Husband’s Attorney Found Not Appealable

Cases: Appealability, Cases: Family Law, Cases: Sanctions

Specific Appealability Provisions Governed The Result.             In Marriage of Rattan & Prasad, Case No. A157880 (1st Dist., Div. 3 Sept. 24, 2020) (unpublished), ex-husband’s attorney was disqualified and was assessed with a CCP §§ 128.5/128.7 sanctions motion of $5,000 for filing frivolous motions.  Attorney’s appeal of the sanctions order was unsuccessful because (1) CCP […]

SLAPP: SLAPP Fees Denied To Plaintiff Where Trial and Appellate Courts Determined The Motion Was Not Frivolous

Cases: SLAPP

Meritless Does Not Necessarily Translate To Frivolous.             In Phelps v. McBratney, Case No. A156638 (1st Dist., Div. 1 Sept. 23, 2020) (unpublished), defendants lost a SLAPP motion (appealing the merits determination and losing).  However, the lower court refused to award plaintiff attorney’s fees because it found the motion was not frivolous.  That determination was

Appealability: 2/3 DCA Affirmed Fee Awards Against Borrower Based On Failure To Provide Compliant Appellate Briefing

Cases: Appealability

Appellate Courts Increasingly Are Not Forgiving Appealing Parties’ Mistakes.             The next case, JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Raskin, Case No. B292597 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Sept. 23, 2020) (unpublished), demonstrates an increasing trend we have seen in appellate decisions:  affirming an appeal where an appellant fails to comply with important “gateway” appellate briefing rules.

Deadlines, Probate: Trustee Obtaining $285,363.10 Fee Award Against Beneficiary Who Brought Objections In Bad Faith Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Deadlines, Cases: Probate

Probate Code Sections, Contractual Fee Provisions, And Equitable Powers Provided Fee Entitlement, With CRC 3.1702 Fee Motion Filing Deadlines Not Applicable To Probate Proceedings.             In Rudnick v. Rudnick, Case No. F079105 (5th Dist. Sept. 23, 2020) (unpublished), a beneficiary in a long-standing trust dispute withdrew objections to a final distribution/termination of the trust on

Consumer Statutes: Reversal Of Substantial Punitive Damages Award Required Reversal Of $953,793.90 CLRA/Song-Beverly Act Fee Award

Cases: Consumer Statutes

Compensatory Award Was $72,564.04, Song-Beverly Act Civil Penalties Were $141,973.30, and Punitive Damages Award Was $725,640.40 (After Plaintiff Accepted A Remitted Amount From A $1,451,973.30 Jury Punitive Award).             Margeson v. Ford Motor Co., Case No. B287445 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Sept. 22, 2020) (unpublished) involved a substantial jury verdict and large attorney’s fees award

Partition: No Abuse Of Discretion Where Trial Court Awarded Entirety Of Fees Incurred To Party In Partition Action When Other Party’s Litigation Conduct Unnecessarily Increased Fees For Both Sides

Cases: Partition

Code Civ. Proc. § 847.040 Allows For Equitable Considerations In Apportioning Costs, And § 847.010 Authorizes The Award Of Fees Incurred To Defend Meritless Claims.             In Diepen v. Bollinger, Case No. B299696 (2d Dist. Div. 6 September 21, 2020) (unpublished), a trial court granted an elderly mother’s request to partition a house she

Partition, Undertaking: No Abuse Of Discretion In Trial Court’s Denial To Plaintiff Of Fees/Costs Not Incurred In Partition Action, And No Error In Granting Disbursement Of Funds To Defendants While Appeal Was Pending

Cases: Partition, Cases: Undertaking

Plaintiff Was Not Entitled To Recover Code Civ. Proc. §§ 874.010 and 847.040 Fees/Costs Incurred Prior To Defendants’ Assertion Of Partition Claim, Nor To Fees/Costs Incurred Strictly For Plaintiff’s Benefit, And Undertaking Was Required To Stay The Case As Judgment Did Not Consist Of Only Fees/Costs.             Land Value Holdings, LLC v. Miller, Case No.

SLAPP: Justice Richman, On Behalf Of A First District, Division 2 Panel, Makes A Plea For The Legislature Or California Supreme Court To Revisit SLAPP Denial Appeal Abuses

Cases: SLAPP

The Particular Issue Was The Impact Of The SLAPP Stay During An Appeal, But Fee Issues Are Implicated In The Mix—But Of Course.             Although not directly involving a fees issue, Oakland Bulk and Oversized Terminal, LLC v. City of Oakland, Case No. A157330 (1st Dist., Div. 2 Sept. 17, 2020) (published) is a very

Family Law, Sanctions: Section 271 Sanctions Affirmed But CCP § 128.7 Sanctions For Reconsideration Motion Reversed Based On Lack Of Appropriate Procedural Compliance

Cases: Family Law, Cases: Sanctions

Failure To Follow 128.7 Procedural Requirements Doomed Part Of Sanctions Award.             CCP § 128.7 sanctions are procedural in nature and rule bound.  Do not follow the procedural rules, and you will lose a sanctions order in the lower court.  Marriage of Nott, Case No. B293055 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Sept. 16, 2020) (unpublished), is

Family Law, Sanctions: $4,290 Sanctions Against Wife’s Attorney Under CCP § 128.7 Reversed On Two Grounds

Cases: Family Law, Cases: Sanctions

First, A Section 2030 Earlier Denial Request Is Not Subject To Reconsideration Limitations, And Husband Did Not Give Proper Section 128.7 Notice Of The Bases For Sanctions—Double Whammy Reversal On Appeal.             The Fourth District, Division Two, in Marriage of Hull, Case No. E072222 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Sept. 15, 2020) (unpublished) was a 3-0

Scroll to Top