Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation

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Grant Hotel Ventures, LLC v. American Property Management Corp., Case No. D066490 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Feb. 19, 2016) (unpublished), parties got into a hotel management imbroglio where plaintiff […]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

Arbitration/Fee Clause Interpretation: Defendant Nonsignatories Prevailing In Arbitration, Which Arbitration Award Was Reversed In Earlier Appeal, Also Not Entitled To Attorney’s Fees Award

Cases: Arbitration, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Nonsignatories

  Reason Is That They Were Not Parties To The Purchase Agreement With A Fees Clause.     Defendants must have been very disappointed, after winning an arbitration award which was confirmed as a judgment and after winning attorney’s fees of $13,465 based on a fees clause in a purchase agreement involved in the arbitration, when

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

Scroll to Top