Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation

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 June 1, 2015) (unpublished) dealt with a fee-shifting clause in an escrow agreement by which a victor on certain tort cross-claims, serving as escrow agent, tried to get an appellate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      In Lintz v. Blue Goose Development, Case No. G048325 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Apr. 24, 2015) (unpublished), a lower court denied an attorney’s fees request brought against two individually sued parties under an LLC operating agreement fees clause, which provided: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      In Ocean View Resort Partnership v. Solanki, Case No. G048728 (4th Dist., Div. 3 April 2, 2015) (unpublished), plaintiff landlord lost a conventional lawsuit (not unlawful detainer) against defendant tenant based on certain tort claims, with the trial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

Fee Clause Interpretation: Tenants Prevailing On Two Tort Claims Did Not Present Fee Entitlement Basis Based On Agreement Which They Claimed Was Operative

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation

  The Other Agreement Might Have Provided Fee Entitlement, But Tenants Did Not Rely On That Agreement On Appeal, Choosing Unoperative Agreement Instead.      The lesson to be learned from Rodriguez v. The Condon Group LLC, Case No. G049245 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Feb. 27, 2015) (unpublished), a 3-0 decision authored by Presiding Justice O’Leary,

Fee Clause Interpretation: Broadly Worded Provision Allowed Fee Recovery To Home Park Tenant Prevailing In Landlord Premises Liability Case

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Landlord/Tenant

    Trial Court’s Denial of Fees Reversed.        Plaintiff was a tenant in a manufactured home park, falling while walking across a common area lawn. Plaintiff brought a premises liability suit against landlord, garnering a $311,899.67 damages award. However, the trial court denied plaintiff’s fee request.      That was reversed on appeal in

Fee Clause Interpretation, Section 1717: Prevailing Alter Ego Entitled To Fee Recovery Based On Fee Clause Allowing For Same In A Payment Dispute

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Section 1717

  Reynolds Metal Drove the Reversal.      Cooley Constr., Inc. v. Matthews, Case No. G050422 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Feb. 24, 2015) (unpublished) was a situation where an alter ego defendant prevailed against a plaintiff in a construction payment dispute, which had two fees clauses—one specifying no fees for construction disputes and another allowing recovery

Scroll to Top