Author name: Marc Alexander

Deeds of Trust, Fee Clause Interpretation: Borrower Prevailing On Quiet Title And Equitable Lien Claims Based On Deeds Of Trust Properly Denied Prevailing Party Fees Based On The Wording Of The So-Called “Fee Clauses”

Cases: Deeds of Trust, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation

Look At the Wording, Folks!             In determining whether there is attorney’s fees entitlement, one must carefully look at the wording of the clauses under which fees are sought as well as the documents which are being sued upon.  Although the borrower technically prevailed on some claims against the lender, the absence of fee entitlement […]

Estoppel, Section 1717: After Reversal of Prior Judgment Finding No Easement, Defendant HOA Was Properly Awarded $731,682.08 In Section 1717 Fees And $111,540.01 In Costs

Cases: Estoppel, Cases: Section 1717

Judicial Estoppel Did Apply Against Plaintiffs Where They Litigated The Position That The Easement Maintenance Agreements Had Fee Clauses, And Were Awarded Fees Before Prior Reversal.             Ranch at the Falls LLC v. Indian Springs Homeowners Assn., Inc., Case No. B311278 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Feb. 10, 2022) (unpublished) demonstrates how a change of fortune

Family Law, Fee Clause Interpretation: Fee Clauses In Dissolution Proceeding Did Not Preclude Ex-Wife’s Recovery Of Fees In Subsequent Domestic Violence Prevention Act Proceeding

Cases: Family Law, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation

Case Remanded On Ex-Wife’s Request For $337,236 In Fees For DVPA Proceeding.             Where a litigant is involved with classic contractual interpretation of a fees clause without any conflicting extrinsic evidence, the result can be a de novo review shocker as revealed in Marriage of Fischer, Case No. A160179 (1st Dist., Div. 2 February 8,

Consumer Statutes: $643,615 Lemon Law Fee Recovery Stands Even Though $227,715.60 Compensatory/Civil Penalty/Punitive Damages Award Was At Issue

Cases: Consumer Statutes

Goes To Show How Recoverable Fees Can Eclipse The Merits Award.             Anderson v. Ford Motor Co., Case No. C089603 (3d Dist. Feb. 8, 2022) (partially published; fee discussion not published) illustrates how statutory fee-shifting provisions, in this case, a lemon law Song-Beverly Act statute can be more oppressive than the merits judgment with respect

Prevailing Party, Section 1717: Attorneys’ Fees Award To Prevailing Plaintiff Upheld On Appeal Despite Invalidation Of Contract Between The Parties Due To Defendants’ Fraud.

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717

Plaintiff’s Action Was “On The Contract” For Purposes Of Civ. Code § 1717, And Fees Provision In Parties’ Contract Was So Broad That It Allowed Award Of Fees To Prevailing Party Whether Action Was Based In Tort Or In Contract.             In Song v. Creative Global Investment, Case Nos. B299422/B301697/B304884 (2d Dist., Div. 2 February

Prevailing Party, SLAPP: 4/3 DCA Affirms Trial Court’s Determination That Cross-Defendants Achieving Partial Success On SLAPP Motion Were Prevailing Parties And Entitled To Attorney Fees.

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: SLAPP

Determination Of Prevailing Party Status In SLAPP Motion Lies Within The Broad Discretion Of The Trial Court, And Will Not Be Overturned Absent A Showing Of Abuse Of That Discretion.             In Harris v. Powerdrive Oil and Gas Company, Case No. G059623 (4th Dist., Div. 3 February 4, 2022) (unpublished), the trial court partially granted

Class Actions: Except For Initial Common Fund Award To Main Class Action Attorneys, Additional Fees Are Going To Be Capped At 25% Of Settlement Amount

Cases: Class Actions

Flint, Michigan Class Action Case Fee Issues Are Resolved At the District Court Level.             District Judge Judith Levy of the USDC, E.D. Michigan, has issued her decision on how attorney’s fees should be allocated in the Flint, Michigan water class action.  The total settlement was for $626 million.  She decided that the main attorneys

Private Attorney General: Fees Properly Denied Where Trial and Appellate Court Had Skepticism That Lawsuit Inspired Changes On Water Rates

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5)

City Looked Like It Made Changes Regardless of Lawsuit.             Under CCP § 1021.5, public interest litigants—if satisfying multiple levels of necessary elements—can be awarded attorney’s fees for vindicating public interests under a catalyst theory.  This usually means that the litigants inspired change by a government entity such that a bounty should be awarded.  However,

Section 1717: Void Indemnity Provision Potentially Allowing Fee Recovery Against Public Agency Did Not Allow Fee Entitlement

Cases: Section 1717

Substantial Fees Against Public Agency Went Away For Now.             San Luis Obispo Local Agency Formation Com’m v. Central Coast Development Co., Case No. B304144 (2d Dist., Div. 6 Jan. 3, 2022) (published) establishes that where an indemnity provision in a public agency contract, even though potentially allowing for fee recovery, is void; there is

Scroll to Top