Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation

Cases Under Review/Fee Clause Interpretation/Section 1717: Mountain Air Decision Pending For Review By California Supreme Court

Cases: Cases Under Review, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Section 1717

  Split Opinion Decided Novation Defense Was “On The Contract” For Fee Clause Interpretation/Section 1717 Purposes.      On November 21, 2014, we posted on Mountain Air Enterprises, LLC v. Sundowner Towers, LLC, 2014 WL 6488418 (Nov. 20, 2014) [1st Dist., Div. 2; majority opinion by Stewart, J. and dissenting opinion by Richman, J.], which held […]

Fee Clause Interpretation/Indemnity: Defendants Were Not Prevailing Parties Under Standard Indemnity and Guaranty Provisions

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Indemnity

Neither One Conferred A Fee Entitlement Basis To Defendants, Requiring Reversal Of Fee Award.     In Judicial Council of California v. Jacobs Facilities, Inc., Case Nos. A140890/A141393 (1st Dist., Div. 1 Aug. 20, 2015) (partially published; fee discussion not published), defendants were awarded contractual attorney’s fees under an indemnity provision and a guaranty.  That ruling

Costs, Deeds Of Trust, Fee Clause Interpretation, Prevailing Party, Section 1717: Deed Of Trust Trustee Did Prevail Under Civil Code Section 1717 Where It Defensed Tort Claims And It Took Neutral Position On Contractual Claim Under Broadly Worded Fees Cla

Cases: Costs, Cases: Deeds of Trust, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: POOF!, Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717

  POOF!:  Award of Fees/Costs To Plaintiff Reversed, With Remand To Award Fees/Costs To Prevailing Trustee.      Torigian v. WT Capital Lender Services, Case No. F068393 (5th Dist. June 24, 2015) (unpublished) is an interesting unpublished decision, authored by Acting Presiding Justice Cornell, where a neutral trustee under a deed of trust was found to

Fee Clause Interpretation: Attorney’s Fees Award To Tenant Reversed Because Fees Clause Only Applied To Contract Claims

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation

  Dismissal Of Contractual Claims Barred Fee Recovery Under Santisas.      Landlord filed a suit against former tenants, after they vacated the property, for breach of contract, negligence and waste, with landlord dismissing the action without prejudice ten months later. Tenant then moved for, and obtained, $26,671 in attorney’s fees under Civil Code section 1717

Fee Clause Interpretation: Narrow Contractual Fees Clause Arising Out Of Escrow Did Not Encompass Unrelated Tort Claims

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation

  Cross-Claims Did Not Implicate Escrow Agreement Fees Clause.      Mills Potoczak & Co. v. Habersham Funding LLC, Case No. C074955 (3d Dist. June 1, 2015) (unpublished) dealt with a fee-shifting clause in an escrow agreement by which a victor on certain tort cross-claims, serving as escrow agent, tried to get an appellate court to

Fee Clause Interpretation: Parties Sued Individually Were Not Exposed To Attorney’s Fees Where LLC Operating Agreement Narrowly Applied To Members Only

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation

  Individual Parties Were Only Secondarily Linked To LLC Members.      In Lintz v. Blue Goose Development, Case No. G048325 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Apr. 24, 2015) (unpublished), a lower court denied an attorney’s fees request brought against two individually sued parties under an LLC operating agreement fees clause, which provided: “In the event that

Fee Clause Interpretation: Broadly Worded Fees Clause Allowed Fee Recovery Against Unsuccessful Landlord On Tort Claims

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation

  Clause Was Broad, No Apportionment Necessary For Jointly Represented Co-Defendant, And Awarded Fees Were Reasonable.      In Ocean View Resort Partnership v. Solanki, Case No. G048728 (4th Dist., Div. 3 April 2, 2015) (unpublished), plaintiff landlord lost a conventional lawsuit (not unlawful detainer) against defendant tenant based on certain tort claims, with the trial

Fee Clause Interpretation: Lower Court Properly Denied Fee Recovery Based On LLC Operating Agreement Fees Clause Only Applicable To Arbitrations

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation

  No Arbitration, No Basis For Fees.      Plaintiff’s complaint in a court case was dismissed with prejudice based on the sustaining of a demurrer to a second amended complaint. Defendant LLC in Axten v. John Foster, LLC, Case No. G049665 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Mar. 25, 2015) (unpublished) then moved for contractual fee recovery

Fee Clause Interpretation, Prevailing Party: Partial and “Mixed” Results By Plaintiffs And Cross-Complainants In Rental Burglary Dispute Supported Trial Court’s Denial Of Contractual Fees To Either Side

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Prevailing Party

  No Clear Winner Emerged In This One.      Where litigants in a case involving both a complaint and cross-complaint win only some claims (but with a broad rental agreement fees clause), the trial judge has discretion to determine whether any side “prevailed” based on a pragmatic inquiry. In Barrera v. Jensen, Case Nos. A136322/A137418

Allocation, Fee Clause Interpretation: $291,355.62 Fee Recovery Affirmed On Appeal Because Broadly Worded Fees Clause Encompassed Quiet Title Claim

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation

  No Apportionment Required Where Lower Court Could Conclude Efforts Intertwined With Covered Quiet Title Work.      In Hamilton Court, LLC v. East Olympic, L.P., Case No. B253511 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Mar. 12, 2015) (unpublished), defendants won $291,355.62 in attorney’s fees for trial and appellate work arising from a quiet title easement dispute. The

Scroll to Top