Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation

Deeds Of Trust, Fee Clause Interpretation: Narrow Nature Of Lender Fee Clauses In Promissory Note And Deed Of Trust Did Not Allow Fee Recovery To Lender Based On Wrongful Foreclosure Tort Claims

Cases: Deeds of Trust, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation

Broader Fee Clauses Might Have Resulted In A Different Conclusion!             Byun v. Loma Linda University, Case No. E069549 (4th Dist., Div. 2 July 25, 2019) (unpublished), although unpublished, does offer some drafting tips to lenders where wrongful foreclosure cases are brought by borrowers, who prevail and then want to recoup some attorney’s fees.              […]

Arbitration, Fee Clause Interpretation, Indemnity: Narrow Fee Clause, Allowing Recovery In Arbitration Only, Did Not Confer Fee Recovery For Fees Relating To Litigation

Cases: Arbitration, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Indemnity

Indemnity Clause Gave No Basis For Fee Recovery, Because It Was Unilateral In Favor Of Unsuccessful Party, Not Allowing For Fee Entitlement–$628,587.50 In Fees Went Away!             In Club Acacia Community Assn. v. Professional Community Management of California, Inc., Case No. G056313 (4th Dist., Div. 3 July 11, 2019) (unpublished), a long-time dispute between an

Fee Clause Interpretation: “Collection Costs” Fees Clause Of A Narrow Nature Was Interpreted Against Drafting Party And Did Not Include Fees For Defending Counterclaims

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation

Fee Award Remanded For A Restudy, But A 50% Reduction For Overlitigation By Prevailing Party Likely Stands On Remand.            To take us back to law school days, contra proferentem is Latin for interpreting a contract against the drafter.  That principle was at play in contractual interpretation of the scope of a lender fees clause

Fee Clause Interpretation, Prevailing Party, Section 998, Section 1717: In A 2-1 Split Decision, 2/5 DCA Affirms $28,000 Contractual Fee Award To Prevailing Tenants Based On An Entered CCP § 998 Judgment And On Residential Lease Fee Provisions

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717, Cases: Section 998

Majority And Dissenting Justice Disagreed On The Meaning Of A $500 Fee Cap Provision When Another Provision Discussed Additional Fees Being Within Play.             We know from 511 S. Park View, Inc. v. Tsantis, 240 Cal.App.4th 44, 48 (2015) [discussed in our October 10, 2015 post] that courts will honor a contractual “cap” of fees

Fee Clause Interpretation, Section 1717: Fraud-Based Claim Upon Narrow Unilateral Fees Clause Was Not Broad Enough To Allow Fees To Prevailing Fraud Plaintiffs

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Section 1717

However, Appellate Court Reversal Of Guaranty Rescission Denial Did Trigger Fee Recovery Under Broad Bilateral Fees Clause.             If readers follow us over the years (or if you are new to us, welcome), the actual wording of a contractual attorney’s fees clause can be critical in terms of whether it allows fee entitlement.  The disparate

Appeal Sanctions, Fee Clause Interpretation, Section 1717: Absence Of Appropriate Fees Clause Doomed Prevailing Defendants’ Request For $621,328.34 In Attorney’s Fees

Cases: Appeal Sanctions, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Section 1717

However, Plaintiffs/Appellants And Their Appellate Counsel Sanctioned $44,654.64 For Frivolous Appeal.             In J.B.B. Investment Partners Ltd. v. Fair, Case Nos. A152877/A153698 (1st Dist., Div. 2 June 4, 2019) (unpublished), plaintiffs prevailed on a breach of contract count through a summary adjudication motion based on defendants’ breach of a settlement agreement and a lot of

Fee Clause Interpretation: Fee Clause In PPM Did Not Cover Plaintiffs’ Negligence “Lost Investment” Lawsuit

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation

Broader Language Might Have Led To A Different Result.             Defendant won a negligent “lost investment” lawsuit brought by plaintiffs where there was a private placement memorandum (PPM) with an attorney’s fees clause.  The clause stated:  “If either party commences litigation for the judicial interpretation, enforcement, termination, cancellation, or rescission hereof, or for damages (including

Fee Clause Interpretation: “Successor/Agent” Provision In Purchase Agreement Properly Led To Fee Award In Favor Of Prevailing Defendant Agent, Where Plaintiff Did Not Object To Instruction Stating Defendant Was An Agent

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation

$143,775 Was The Fee Tally/$11,438 Was The Costs Tally, With The Appellate Court Chiding Losing Plaintiff For Disparaging Trial Judge And Engaging In “Apophasis.”             In Mayhew Plaza Woodland Hills II, LLC v. Kelsey, Case No. G055668 et al. (4th Dist., Div. 3 May 30, 2019) (unpublished), plaintiff purchaser sued defendant seller and defendant agent

Fee Clause Interpretation, Section 998: Parking Lot Operator Entitled To Attorney’s Fees From Losing Lessee, But Whether Expert Witness Fees Allowed Had To Be Determined On Remand

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Section 998

Trial Court Erroneously Allowed Them Under CCP § 998, But Parking Lot Contract Clause Needed To Be Restudied On Remand To See If Operator Obtains Expert Witness Fees.             In PCAM, LLC v. Bally Total Fitness of California, Inc., Case No, B277637/B285308 (2d Dist., Div. 8 May 28, 2019) (unpublished), parking lot owner, operator, and

Fee Clause Interpretation, Prevailing Party: Defendant Properly Denied Attorney’s Fees Where Plaintiff Really Obtained All Of Its Relief As The Prevailing Party Under Broad Fees Clause

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Prevailing Party

Defendant Was Denied Fees, But It Did Not Independently Appeal—Maybe Should Have!             In MBK Properties LLC v. San Diego Beer Co., Inc., Case No. G055856 (4th Dist., Div. 3 May 28, 2019) (unpublished), seller/plaintiff sold a commercial parcel to buyer/defendant under a written purchase and sale agreement (PSA) which had a contractual fees clause

Scroll to Top