Reason Was That Guarantor Guaranteed Orally, Not Assuming The Fee Clause Liability Under The Guaranteed Note With A Written Fees Clause. In Khodagulyan v. Aminpour, Case No. B270330 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Sept. 6, 2018) (unpublished), a cross-complainant was found to be a prevailing party because he had incurred attorney’s fees to collect on […]
Deed Of Trust Fees Clause Was Not Broad Enough To Encompass Real Estate Option Dispute. We have somewhat, on a syllogistic basis, indicated how one can achieve success on a fee petition in past posts—and we may give more clues to follow in future posts. However, the first element is FEE ENTITLEMENT. You need
Fee Clause Was Also Broad In Scope, But Nonsignatory Individuals Were Not Party To The Underlying Agreement. In Mayhew Plaza Woodland Hills II, LLC v. Kelsey, Case No. G054435 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Aug. 6, 2018) (unpublished), plaintiff dismissed an individual defendant in his capacity as representative of an estate in an action alleging
Lease Agreement At Issue Because Lease Term Had Expired; And, In Any Event, Ejectment Was Tort Claim Not Encompassed Within Narrower Fees Clause. Compton Commercial Development Renaissance Plaza v. Taco Bell Corp., Case No. B283393 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Aug. 1, 2018) (unpublished) was a case where landlord sued former tenant/assignee Taco Bell for
Narrow Lease Clause Applying Broadly To “Any Party” Encompassed Fee Exposure With Respect To Actions Between Joint Tenants. Sometimes small words make a difference in the interpretation of the scope of an attorney’s fees provision. In this instance, the words “any party” opened the door to fee exposure in a controversy between joint tenants with
Plaintiff Never Mentioned Lease Or Fee Recovery In The Premises Liability Suit Until After The Jury Win, With Appellate Court Agreeing With Trial Court’s Construction Of The Fees Clause. We get the feeling that the 1/2 DCA in Wright v. State of California, Case No. A150165 (1st Dist., Div. 2 July 27, 2018) (unpublished)
Result Was Affirmance Of $38,000 Fees Award On One Of Three Cases, But Affirming The Denial Of The Remaining $165,000 Total Request Based On Topical Analysis Above. Contreras v. Silla America, Inc., Case No. B283118 (2d Dist., Div. 3 July 17, 2018) (unpublished) involved a situation where a trial judge decided that an overall
$45,263.33 Was The Award After A Dismissal Based On Plaintiff Not Appearing At Trial. In Kleidman v. RFF Family Partnership, L.P., Case No. B268541 (2d Dist., Div. 4 July 10, 2018) (unpublished), plaintiff failed to appear at a scheduled trial such that his case against a lender was dismissed, a determination affirmed on appeal.
However, Defense Attorney’s Recordation Of Judgment Abstract Based On Including Fees As Costs Before Fee Motion Was Heard Troubled The Court Of Appeal, Which Ordered The Lien Removed. In Labertew v. Whiteley, Case No. C077751 (3d Dist. July 10, 2018) (unpublished), plaintiffs, successors to the original owner on land where there was telephone equipment
“To Protect Lien” Under Deed Of Trust Fees Clause Was Viewed As Broad In Ambit. In Arefi v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, Case No. B263947 (2d Dist., Div. 7 July 2, 2018) (unpublished), a borrower brought various causes of action to set aside/cancel a trustee’s sale, to quiet title, and to obtain recovery under
