Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation

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      In Fleming v. Peloquin, Case No. E063069 (4th Dist., Div. 2 May 6, 2016) (unpublished), plaintiff investor in an LLC venture gone bad sued other parties who were either members or parties with involvement pursuant to both an Operating Agreement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 […]

Fee Clause Interpretation/POOF!/Prevailing Party: Remand To Clarify Damages Awarded To Nonprevailing Plaintiff Real Estate Buyers Meant Substantial Fee Award To Prevailing Real Estate Seller Needed To Be Revisited On Remand

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: POOF!, Cases: Prevailing Party

  Award of Over $477,000 in Fees/Costs Went POOF!      In Fong v. Sheridan, Case Nos. A144286/A14522 (1st Dist., Div. 1 Apr. 21, 2016) (unpublished), buyers of seaside property sued seller and a dual broker agent for breach of contract, intentional misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, and rescission after dual agent told buyers at a pre-sale stage

Fee Clause Interpretation/Section 1717: Seller Prevailing Under Purchase/Sale Agreement Fee Clause Entitled To $95,707 Fee Recovery Plus Some Routine Costs

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Section 1717

  Multiple Challenges By Losing Buyer Rejected By 2/6 DCA.      Real estate seller in Weinstock Porter Development, LLC v. Teixeira Farms, Inc., Case No. B253455 (2d Dist., Div. 6 Apr. 25, 2016) (unpublished) defeated buyer’s rescission claim based on environmental contamination where the record showed the parties entered into a release of claims because

Fee Clause Interpretation: Narrow Contractual Fees Clause Did Not Cover Tort And Subrogation Claims, Which Did Not Arise Under Contract With Fees Clause

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Nonsignatories

  Negligence And Subrogation Claims Did Not Give Prevailing Cross-Defendant Bank Entitlement To Fee Recovery.     Under our category “Fee Clause Interpretation,” we have surveyed many decisions which really demonstrate that the wording of a fees clause actually determines if fee recovery is possible for tort clams or possible against losing contractual non-signatories.  The Fifth

Allocation/Fee Clause Interpretation: $340,000 Fee Award To Former Attorney Who Became Operating Agreement LLC Member Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation

  Operating Agreement Fees Clause Was Broad, And No Allocation Needed With Respect To Time Spent On A Nominal Defendant.      This next case is very factually interesting in nature. In essence, the underlying dispute involved an attorney and clients having some claim to $12 million in California State Lottery winnings by a decedent. Attorney

Fee Clause Interpretation/POOF!: Nonprevailing Cross-Complainant Appealed $4.2 Million Fee Recovery In Case Producing Somewhat Split Results

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: POOF!

  …. Smart Move – Fee Award Entombed On Appeal. Tomb of General Ulysses S. Grant, Riverside Drive, NYC.  1897.  Library of Congress.      In U.S. Grant Hotel Ventures, LLC v. American Property Management Corp., Case No. D066490 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Feb. 19, 2016) (unpublished), parties got into a hotel management imbroglio where plaintiff

Fee Clause Interpretation/Section 1717: Voluntarily Dismissed Defendant On Tort Claims Not Entitled To Fee Recovery Because It Was A Nonsignatory Not Falling Into Important Exceptions

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Section 1717

  Fee Request For $928,791.25 Never Happened As An Award.     One must be careful on how one is positioned as far as status in attorney’s fees disputes, because nonsignatories must push the right “buttons” or they risk losing fees, which happened to the defendant/appellant in Seaport Village Ltd. v. Terramar Retail Centers, Case No.

Fee Clause Interpretation/Prevailing Party: Plaintiff Winning $25,522.38 Contractual/Noncontract Claim Dispute With Fees Clause Reaps $55,911 In Fees/Costs

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Prevailing Party

  Failure to Provide Reporter’s Transcript Forfeited Challenge, But Fee Clause Was Broad Enough To Encompass Contract/Noncontract Claims.     Plaintiff agreed to install electrical distribution service to defendant’s winery facility, with plaintiff suing on both contract/noncontract claims for defendant’s alleged failure to pay.  Plaintiff sought $43,000 on his claims, while the defense argued only $18,000

Fee Clause Interpretation/Section 1717: Fee Recovery Cap In Attorney’s Fees Clause Not Void As Against Section 1717 Policies

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Section 1717

  $750 Contractual Fee “Cap” Honored In Lease Agreement.   Senators comparing caps.  Library of Congress. 1955.      A trial judge in 511 S. Park View, Inc. v. Tsantis, No. BV031134 (L.A. Superior Court App. Div. Oct. 5, 2015) (published) awarded $12,375 in attorney’s fees to prevailing defendants after an unlawful detainer trial based on

Fee Clause Interpretation/Section 1717: Refusal To Award Escrow Holder Fees Under Escrow/Other Transactional Documents Reversed On Appeal

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Section 1717

  Escrow Holder Entitled to Fee Against Losing Broker.     When it comes to contractual agreements not subject to any extrinsic evidence, appellate courts will construe them independently to see if fee entitlement was either properly granted or denied.  In Nelson v. Peirce, Case No. B250609 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Sept. 29, 2015) (unpublished), the

Scroll to Top