Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation

Fee Clause Interpretation, Retainer Agreements: Broad Retainer Attorney’s Fees Clause Encompassing “Any Dispute” Allowed For Fee Recovery In Legal Malpractice Action

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Retainer Agreements

  Action Sounded In Both Contract And Tort, So Recovery Allowed.     In GoTek Energy, Inc. v. SoCal IP Law Group, LLP, Case No. B266681 (2d Dist., Div. 6 Oct. 12, 2016) (published), an initial law firm providing patent application work for a client beat back a legal malpractice action based on the governing statute […]

Fee Clause Interpretation/Paralegals: Broad Fees Clause Justified $93,200 Fee Award, Inclusive Of Work By Paralegals

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Paralegal Time

  Paralegals, Even Uncertificated Ones, Are Compensable In Fee Proceedings.      The Fourth District, Division 3, in Alcone v. SLV Associates, LLC, Case No. G051813 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Aug. 30, 2016) (unpublished), dealt with a trustee under a lease who prevailed where there was a broad “arising out of lease” fees clause. Trustee then

Fee Clause Interpretation: Defendant Developer Winning Summary Judgment Correctly Denied Fee Recovery

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation

  Reason Was That Defense Involving A Contractual Lease Did Not Fall Within “Action” Language Of The Fees Clause.      Although this decision in unpublished, the Second District, Division Two has weighed in on an issue pending before the California Supreme Court in the Mountain Air case, namely, whether developer’s successful invocation of a settlement

Fee Clause Interpretation, Prevailing Party, Section 1717: There Can Be Two Prevailing Parties For Fee Recovery Purposes

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

One Can Recover Under Section 1717 And The Other Side Can Recover Based On Fees Clause Breadth Under Civil Code Section 1021.          Stadium Promenade, LLC v. Auld Irisher, Orange, LLC, Case No. G051513 (4th Dist., Div. 3 July 15, 2016) (unpublished) is a case which illustrates that both sides in a case can

Deed Of Trust/Fee Clause Interpretation: Where Junior Lienholder Paid Off And Extinguished Senior Secured Debt, Senior Lender Prevailing In Post-Payoff Action Not Entitled To Recoup Attorney’s Fees

Cases: Deeds of Trust, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation

  DOT Fee Provision Was Specific, Not Allowing For Fee Recovery Under The Circumstances.      The next case should be of interest to real estate secured lender attorneys, counseling on what they may need to do in certain payoff/junior lienholder foreclosure situations. It also may counsel some changes to the standard deed of trust instruments

Fee Clause Interpretation, Reasonableness Of Fees, Section 1717: $239K Fee Recovery Under Broad Contractual Fees Clause Sustained, Except For $4.4K Modification Beyond Prevailing Party’s Request Which Was Deleted On Appeal

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees, Cases: Section 1717

  Technical Challenges To Fee Award Did Not Work.     In Vilela v. Rodriguez, Case No. B262442 (2d Dist., Div. 6 June 22, 2016) (unpublished), plaintiff lost a case against various defendants on both torts and a declaratory relief count, with a fees clause in a subscription agreement broadly covering fees “in defending against an

Fee Clause Interpretation/Section 1717: $16,880 Fee Recovery Under Lease Dispute Reversed Because Tortious Fraud Was Not “On The Contract”

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Section 1717

  Neither Section 1717 Nor CCP § 1021 Permitted Fee Recovery.       In Ruballos v. Ruballos, Case No. B268343 (2d Dist., Div. 8 May 26, 2016) (unpublished), a lease non-signatory prevailed in a nasty lease dispute, based on a fraud-based controversy.  The lower court awarded $16,880 in attorney’s fees based on a contractual fees clause.

Deed Of Trust, Fee Clause Interpretation, POOF!: One Action Rule Barred Award Of Attorney’s Fees To Lender Based On Wording In Trust Deed Fees Clause

Cases: Deeds of Trust, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: POOF!

  Result Was That Trial Court’s Award Of $175,000 In Fees Went POOF!      The lender in HSBC Bank, USA v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Case No. B266405 (2d Dist., Div. 6 May 16, 2016) (unpublished) likely was surprised by the result in this case, but it also shows you how powerful the one action

Fee Clause Interpretation, Prevailing Party, Section 1717: Another Reversal Of Fortune—Rehearing Granted Where Prevailing Plaintiff Now Gets Return Of $4.2 Million Fee Recovery

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

  Earlier, The Fee Recovery Went POOF!, But Restored After A Rehearing.   President Grant at his cottage by the sea.  c1872.  Library of Congress.     We have posted before in our February 21, 2016 post on U.S. Grant Hotel Ventures, LLC v. American Property Management Corp., a Fourth District, Division 1 appeal where each

Allocation/Fee Clause Interpretation: Losing Plaintiff In Integrated Contractual Relationship With Broad Fees Clause Rightly Hit With Contractual Fee Exposure

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation

  Allocation Between Defendants Was Not Necessary Where The Work Was Intertwined.      In Fleming v. Peloquin, Case No. E063069 (4th Dist., Div. 2 May 6, 2016) (unpublished), plaintiff investor in an LLC venture gone bad sued other parties who were either members or parties with involvement pursuant to both an Operating Agreement (where there

Scroll to Top