Reversal of Sanctions Award Now Published, Showing Unsettled Law on Scope of Marital Privilege. In our July 31, 2012 post, we examined Diepenbrock v. Brown, a First District, Division 3 unpublished decision reversing a protective order sanctions award based upon an unsettled marital privilege issue. We can now report that the opinion was […]
“Reverse” Unity of Interest Argument Did Not Dictate Different Result. Civil Code section 3344.1, California’s right to publicity statute, does contain a mandatory fee-shifting clause in favor of the prevailing party, with attorney’s fees and costs being the carrot for such a party. The next case involves an interesting procedural situation in a
May Have Some Repercussions for Construction Defect Litigation Costs and Homeowner/HOA Fee Recovery. On August 16, 2012, our state supreme court issued its opinion in Pinnacle Museum Tower Assn. v. Pinnacle Market Development, Case No. S186149 (Cal. Sup. Ct. Aug.16, 2012). The high court found that CC&Rs mandating arbitration between developers and homeowner associations
Bizarre Circumstances Led to Reversal and Denial of Motion to Dismiss Appeal of Fee/Costs Award. Well, the fourth appeal in a longstanding mold/water intrusion/infestation dispute between a homeowner and HOA involved homeowners’ challenge to a judgment of dismissal in favor of HOA as well as the lower court’s order awarding HOA attorney’s fees
Judicial Estoppel Doctrine Also Found Inapt for Awarding Fees to Winning Appellate Parties, Noting International Billing Rationale Not Embraced by California Supreme Court. Plaintiffs (lenders) must have been feeling pretty good after garnering a $450,000 plus attorney’s fees award from defendants (borrowers) based upon a simple indemnification provision which was found to have
Due Process Violations Are Important in this One. Marriage of Tossey, Case No. G044484 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Aug. 16, 2012) (unpublished), authored by Justice Aronson on behalf of a 3-0 panel, reminds us once again that due process issues are important to appellate courts when deciding appeals. Wife challenged a trial
Lower Court Did Weigh Financial Abilities of Both Parties. Husband lost his appeal of a lower court order requiring husband and wife to split the costs of minor child’s counsel in a custody dispute. On appeal in Marriage of Carter, Case No. C068599 (3d Dist. Aug. 16, 2012) (unpublished), husband challenged the award
Marc Alexander and Mike Hensley can be contacted as follows: email: calattorneysfees@gmail.com phone: 714.852.6800 fax: 714.852.6899 work address: AlvaradoSmith APC, Suite 200, Santa Ana, CA 92707
Scholarly Review of Amendments to Family Code Section 2030 Undertaken in Opinion. Marriage of Foglar, Case No. H037573 (6th Dist. Aug. 16, 2012) (unpublished) caught our eye because of its discussion of the legislative amendments to Family Code section 2030, the “needs based” fee authorization in family law matters whose purpose is to
