Author name: Marc Alexander

Deed Of Trust/Section 1717: Borrowers’ Fraudulent Inducement Claim Was Not “On The Contract” So As To Allow Recovery Under Deed Of Trust Fees Clause

Cases: Deeds of Trust, Cases: Section 1717

Characterization Of Borrowers’ Claim Was Determinative.             In Aniel v. American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc., Case Nos. A141462/A142729 (1st Dist., Div. 4 July 21, 2017) (unpublished), borrowers challenged the nonjudicial foreclosure of rental property by alleging, but losing, a claim that lenders/related servicing entities fraudulently induced them to let the loan go into default so […]

Deed Of Trust/Section 1717: Borrowers’ Fraudulent Inducement Claim Was Not “On The Contract” So As To Allow Recovery Under Deed Of Trust Fees Clause

Cases: Deeds of Trust, Cases: Section 1717

Characterization Of Borrowers’ Claim Was Determinative.             In Aniel v. American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc., Case Nos. A141462/A142729 (1st Dist., Div. 4 July 21, 2017) (unpublished), borrowers challenged the nonjudicial foreclosure of rental property by alleging, but losing, a claim that lenders/related servicing entities fraudulently induced them to let the loan go into default so

Retainer Agreements: Contingent Attorney’s Failure To Define “Recovery” With Specificity Prevented Recovery For Work To Obtain Satisfaction Of Adverse Trademark Judgment Against Clients.

Cases: Retainer Agreements

Recovery Only Applied To Money Received By Clients, Teaching That Ambiguous Retainer Agreement Language Will Be Construed Against The Drafting Attorney.               Justice Fybel, the author of a 3-0 affirming opinion in Kadin v. ABS Power Brake Inc., Case No. G052734 (4th Dist., Div. 3 July 21, 2017) (unpublished), reminds us practitioners, especially litigators, to

Fee Clause Interpretation: 4/1 DCA Reverses Denial Of Attorney’s Fees Under Binding Letter Of Intent

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation

Given That Plaintiffs Did Not Challenge Reasonableness Of Requested Fees, Judgment Modified To Allow Defendants Over $2.45 Million In Fees/Costs.             We have posted on a lot of cases about reversal of fortunes, and the next one is one of them.  It may counsel that litigants need to oppose both fee entitlement and reasonableness of

Civil Rights: Plaintiff In Unruh Act Case Not Allowed Fee Recovery For Fees Expended In Prior Federal Action Dismissed As Moot Based On Parking Lot Fixes

Cases: Civil Rights

Plaintiff Sought $36,022, But Was Only Awarded $4,380 In Costs And Fees.             Even in the civil rights areas, looks like a lot of cases come down to attorney’s fee rulings.  Turner v. Anand, Case No. D070433 (4th Dist., Div. 1 July 13, 2017) (unpublished) illustrates this well.             There, plaintiff sued defendant in state

Employment, Indemnity, Reasonableness Of Fees, Requests For Admissions: Four Unpublished Decisions On July 11, 2017 Highlight These Issues

Cases: Employment, Cases: Indemnity, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees, Cases: Requests for Admission

Fee Reasonableness—Neman Real Estate Investments, LLC v. Oken. Case Nos. B263196/B263718 (2d Dist., Div. 4 July 11, 2017) (unpublished).             In this first one, defendants won a commercial property dispute and were awarded costs/fees of $619,566.75 based on a “blended” $495 hourly rate to L.A. real estate litigators that happened to be “below market.”  The

Consumer Statutes: Third District Decides Broad Interpretation Of Remedial Swimming Pool Construction Statute Should Not Be Adopted And That Plaintiff Did Not Prevail

Cases: Consumer Statutes

We Explore This Decision’s Reasoning In Our Comment.                                                                                                  Movie:  The Drowning Pool.  1975.              In El Dorado Custom Pools v. Stein, Case No. C075500 (3d Dist. July 10, 2017), a plaintiff contracted with a pool company to built a pool on his property.  Pool company sued for breach of contract, quantum meruit and other

Section 998: Joint Offer Was Not Invalid Because Rejecting Joint Litigants Had A “Unity Of Interest”

Cases: Section 998

General Rule Was Not Applicable Because “Unity Of Interest” Exception Applied.             A trial judge awarded $20,780.20 in costs (primary expert witness fees) as well as attorney’s fees to the defense based on a rejected CCP § 998 offer to joint plaintiffs.  The rejecting plaintiffs in Rumbeck v. Premier Valley, Inc., Case No. F072262 (5th

Off Topics: Bloggers Mike And Marc Are Interviewed About Attorney’s Fees For Podcast Hosted By The National Association Of Legal Fees Analysis

Off Topics

Just In Case You've Ever Wondered What Your Bloggers Sound Like When They Push Aside The Keyboard And Pick Up A Microphone.         Terry Jesse, the Executive Director of the National Association of Legal Fee Analysis (NALFA), headquartered in Chicago, interviewed us, your faithful bloggers, on (what else) the subject of attorney's fees.  Click here

In The News: Gage County, Neb. Looking For Some Insurance Payout To Cover Beatrice Six $31 Million-Plus Verdict Augmented By Fees, Costs, And Interest

In The News

Tax Revenues Likely Insufficient And Insurance Coverage Looks Like It Will Be Disputed/Might Be Insufficient To Cover Total Loss.             Joe Duggan who works in the Lincoln, Nebraska bureau of The World-Herald, wrote a recent post about a $28 million jury verdict which a Gage County, Nebraska federal jury awarded to the Beatrice Six and

Scroll to Top