Cases: Estoppel – Page 5 – Cal Attorneys Fees

Even Though Letter Of Intent Required Good Faith Consummation Of A Subsequent Definitive Agreement, Lack Of Attorney’s Fees Clause In LOI Gave Winning Plaintiffs No Fee Entitlement Basis

August 7, 2008

Second District Reversed $119,947 Fee Award Under Definitive Agreement Fee Clause. One of the first concerns that a winning litigant must face in post-trial proceedings is whether the litigant has a fee entitlement basis to seek an award of attorney’s fees. This usually focuses on a contractual fee clause or a […]

Rejecting Judicial Estoppel Argument, Former Attorneys Win Over $101,000 Fee/Costs Award from in Pro Per Plaintiff Client

June 30, 2008

Second District, Division Three Panel Rejects Judicial Estoppel, Self-Representation, and Third-Party Beneficiary Arguments Raised By Losing Client. An attorney’s fees clause in a retainer agreement is a great equalizer in any litigation over the proper fee charged for services by former counsel. An in pro per Client sued his Former Attorneys,

ESTOPPEL THEORY REJECTED BY SIXTH DISTRICT IN RECENT PUBLISHED DECISION.

Cases: Estoppel

May 18, 2008

Even Though Losing Opponent Prayed for Fee Recovery in Complaint, Estoppel Theory Did Not Justify Awarding Fees Where Opponent Never Had Entitlement to Recover Fees. The Sixth District Court of Appeal, in Blickman Turkus, LP v. MF Downtown Sunnyvale, LLC, Case No. H029980 (6th Dist. April 30, 2008), published a decision

PROBATE ATTORNEYS PERFORMING PERSONAL SERVICES FOR ESTATE EXECUTOR NOT BARRED FROM OBTAINING FEES BASED ON PROBATE COURT DENIAL ORDER.

Cases: Estoppel

May 16, 2008

Sixth District Court of Appeal Found Prior Probate Court Order Denying Fees Did Not Collaterally Bar Attorneys’ Subsequent Attempts to Obtain Fees for Personal Services Rendered to Executor. In a rather technical opinion arising in the probate context, the Sixth District Court of Appeal validated attorneys’ efforts to recover fees from