No Public Policy Concerns Militate Against Honoring Parties’ Settlement. In GMAC Mortgage v. Sandoval, Case No. E059111 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Apr. 8, 2014) (unpublished), lenders won a declaratory relief action with respect to lien priority and were awarded attorney’s fees of $21,284.25 based on a trust deed fees clause. Defendants appealed only […]
Judicial Lien Imposition Found to be the Equivalent of an Improper Deficiency Judgment. Borrower/former owner of San Diego property damaged by 2007 wildfires was nonjudicially foreclosed out of the property by a junior lienholder, which held the property for a couple of years before losing it to a foreclosing senior lienholder. Former owner
“Walking Out and Not Coming Back” Is Not a Legitimate Option. The defense in Fletcher v. HPN Holdings, Case No. F064864 (5th Dist. Apr. 8, 2014) (unpublished) was sanctioned $6,000 under CCP §2023.030(a), inclusive of attorney’s fees for bringing the motion to compel and arguing it, for failing to honor an agreement to
Commercial Code Section on Cashier’s Check Tender Went Hand in Hand With Judgment Enforcement Provisions. You knew this one would be fun given the first paragraph in Gray1 CPB, LLC v. SCC Acquisitions, Inc., Case No. G047429 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Apr. 9, 2014) (published): “You cross continents and spend years trying to
In a March 22, 2014 post, we discussed Rosen v. LegacyQuest, a case holding that certain post-judgment enforcement fees can be collected from sureties. We can now report that this decision was certified for publication on April 8, 2014.
Once Some Degree of Success in Shown, Fee Claimant Must Satisfy Some Elements of Multi-Factored Test For Discretionary Fee Award. Pretty recently, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in Donachie v. Liberty Life Assurance Co. of Boston, 2014 WL 928971 (2d Cir. Mar. 14, 2014), had to decide what factors are used to
Fee Entitlement Justified Under Storage Contract “New Customer” Fee Clause. Unfortunately, this next case—involving an in pro per plaintiff who looks like she was overmatched—still illustrates our Mission Statement that a small dispute, whether won or lost, can still generate fees which eclipse what is involved on the merits—something both litigants and practitioners
Trustee Had Sought About $1 Million Under Both Statutes. In a lot of cases where pure or predominantly legal issues are involved, the lower court’s determinations on factual issues win the day. That is also the case in the fee proceeding area, where factual findings determine who actually prevailed if the record demonstrated
Based on reader feedback, here is a summary of cases involving fees/costs issues that are currently pending for review before the California Supreme Court: 1. SLAPP—Barry v. State Bar of California, No. S214058 (formerly published at 218 Cal.App.4th 1435): if the trial court grants a SLAPP motion on the ground that the
Lodestar Plus 2.0 Positive Multiplier Fee Award Went Away. Van de Kamps Coalition v. L.A. Community College District, Case No. B241970 (2d Dist., Div. 2 Apr. 2, 2014) (unpublished)involved a CEQA challenge in litigation between plaintiff and LACCD (primarily) regarding the historic Van de Kamp’s Bakery property located around Fletcher Drive and San
