Author name: Marc Alexander

Allocation/Prevailing Party: Defendant Prevailing In One Action Granted Fees, But Not Fees Incurred In Prior Declaratory Relief Action

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Prevailing Party

       Our local appellate court in Sampson v. The Richardson Group, Case No. G046234 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Jan. 30, 2013) (unpublished) (3-0; author: A.P.J. Rylaarsdam) affirmed a determination that a contractor on a county construction project prevailed against subcontractor when judgment was entered against subcontractor, even though that party obtained some partial success […]

Fee Clause Interpretation/Section 1717: “Action” Language In Written Easement Agreement Fees Clause Encompassed Both The Complaint Or An Answer Raising A Successful Defense

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Section 1717

  Appellate Court Reverses Fees Denial Order, Siding With Justice Armstrong’s Interpretation of “Action” in Gil.      We now have a split of intermediate appellate thinking on whether “action” encompasses just the complaint or also a “defense” in an answer. Exxess Electronizz v. Heger Realty Corp., 64 Cal.App.4th 698 (1998) and Gil v. Mansano, 121

Family Law: Nom-Encumbering Spouse Can Expunge FLARPL Real Property Lien Under The Right Circumstances And Borson Fees Can Be Offset For Unreasonable Litigation Conduct Under Family Code Section 271

Cases: Family Law

       In re Marriage of Turkanis and Price, Case No. B234011 et al. (2d Dist., Div. 8 Jan. 30, 2013) (published) faced two interesting questions: (1) can a non-encumbering spouse bring a motion to expunge an attorney’s family law attorney’s real property lien (FLARPL) granted by an encumbering spouse?; and (2) can a Borson

Family Law: $70,000 Pendente Lite Fee Award Reversed For Court’s Failure To Make Statutorily Mandated Findings On Husband’s Ability To Pay

Cases: Family Law

       Justice Ikola, on behalf of a 3-0 panel, faced an interesting dissolution proceeding in Marriage of Turner, Case No. G045973 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Jan. 28, 2013) (unpublished).      After 16 years of marriage, wife applied for child/spousal support of at least $40,000 per month (yes, what you see is correct) in a

Fee Clause Interpretation/Section 1717: Third-Party Beneficiaries Win Fee Recovery Under Broadly Worded Prevailing Party Clause

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Section 1717

  Clause Language and Negotiation of Settlement Demonstrated Prevailing Parties Were Third Party Beneficiaries      In Homeport Ins. Services, Inc. v. Lundy, Case No. B238296 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Jan. 28, 2013) (unpublished), an injured longshoreman settled a worker’s compensation claim against SSA (terminal associated entities) and a personal injury action against City of Long

Private Attorney General: Fee Recovery Denial Based On Financial Stake Prong Of CCP § 1021.5 Sustained On Appeal

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

       Aegis Medical Systems, Inc. v. Zitto, Case No. A134907 (1st Dist., Div. 5 Jan. 28, 2013) (unpublished) was not a hard one to decide at either or the appellate court level, apparently. Although plaintiff did prevail on a drug treatment “underground regulation” issue, the problem was that plaintiff had a huge financial incentive

In The News . . . . Tustin Unified School District And City Of Tustin Have Both Spent At Least $770,000 In School Construction Feud Involving Heritage School And Tustin High School

In The News

  Trial Slated to Begin Today.      As reported by Elysse James in a January 28, 2013 article in The Orange County Register, both sides in a feud slated to begin trial today have spent a substantial amount each in a dispute involving claims over construction on Heritage School and Tustin High School. According to

Scroll to Top