Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation

Fee Clause Interpretation, Settlement: Narrow Fee Clause Allowing For Recovery For Breach Of Settlement Agreement Did Not Justify Recovery Where No Finding Of Breach Made

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Settlement

  Broader Clause Might Have Resulted In Different Result.      This next case shows that care must be taken in crafting the scope of a fees clause, especially in a settlement agreement. The party successfully enforcing a settlement agreement was denied fees given that the fees clause was not broad enough to allow for the […]

Fee Clause Interpretation, Judgment Enforcement, Section 1717: Judgment Debtor Properly Denied Fee Recovery Under CC 1717 Because He Didn’t Prevail On Motion To Vacate Renewed Judgment And 1717 Fees Clause Did Not Pertain To Motions Narrowly

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Judgment Enforcement, Cases: Section 1717

  Unusual Holding in Rainier Decision Did Not Compel Contrary Result.      In Mir v. Iungerich & Spackman, Case No. B250393 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Jan. 29, 2015) (unpublished), judgment debtor obtained partial success on a motion to vacate a renewed judgment arising from a legal retainer agreement with a fees clause. Judgment debtor persuaded

Fee Clause Interpretation: Tort Claims Where Interpretation Of Transaction Agreement Not At Issue Were Not Subject To Fee Recovery

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation

  Fee Provision Only Encompassed Narrower Action “To Enforce Or Interpret the Agreement.”      Plaintiff did well in a conversion, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and unfair competition action against defendants, eventually netting him $3.82 million in compensatory damages and $400,000 total punitive defendants against two defendants. He then sought to recover $2.1 million under

Arbitration/Fee Clause Interpretation: Superior Court Award Of Attorney’s Fees To Arbitration Party Successfully Defending Arbitrator Disqualification Order Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Arbitration, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation

  $55,698 Fee Award Justified Based On Broad Fees Clause in Operating Agreement.      Fiscal Funding Co., Inc. v. Dones, Case No. A135451 (1st Dist., Div. 3 Dec. 15, 2014) (unpublished) involved a $55,698 fee award by the superior court to a party to an arbitration successfully defending an arbitrator’s disqualification order in superior court

Fee Clause Interpretation/Section 1717: Contract Illegality Doomed Fee Recovery Under Purchase Agreement, But Attorney’s Fees Denial Reversed Under Option Agreement Fees Clause

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Section 1717

  A 2-1 Decision, With Majority Holding Novation Defense Fell Within Fee Clause Ambit, And With Dissent Arguing No Fees Entitled Under Option Fees Clause So Trial Court Properly Denied Fees.      At its core, Mountain Air Enterprises, LLC v. Sundowner Towers, LLC, Case No. A138306 (1st Dist., Div. 2 Nov. 20, 2014) (published) is

Fee Clause Interpretation: Narrow Deed Restriction Language Did Not Extend To Non-Signatories

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation

  “Parties” Language Narrowed the Controversy Greatly.      NMS Properties v. Jones, Case No. B246167 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Nov. 4, 2014) (unpublished) was a Santa Monica affordable housing case involving a fee recovery to a third-party beneficiary under a deed restriction applying only to “parties.” On appeal, the fee recovery was overturned because the

Fee Clause Interpretation: Attorney’s Fees Award Against Nonprevailing Parties Reversed Where Fee Clause Only Covered Arbitrations, Not Results in Court

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation

  $20,000 Fee Award Went POOF!      Rancho Palo Verde Homeowners Assn. v. Coffman, Case No. D063135 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Sept. 18, 2014) (unpublished) did not present much difficulty for the appellate court as far as resolving the challenge to a $20,000 fee award against non-prevailing parties. The operative fees clause only applied to

Fee Clause Interpretation/Section 1717/Nonsignatories: Individual Non-Signatory Plaintiff Hit With Fee Exposure Based On Breadth Of Fee Clause

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Nonsignatories, Cases: Section 1717

    $370,850 Fee Award Affirmed On Appeal.        In Bribiesca v. Pacific Perfusion, Inc., Case No. D063256 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Sept. 17, 2014) (unpublished), a losing individual plaintiff appealed a contractual fees award of $370,850 in favor of the defense. Plaintiff’s appeal did not succeed in reducing the award.      The first

Interpretation/Indemnification/Reasonableness Of Fees: CAR Listing Agreement Indemnification Clause Broad Enough To Permit Fee Recovery To Brokers Defensing Seller X-Complaint Based On Inaccurate/Undisclosed Information

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Indemnity, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

  $348,372 Is Broker Fee Recovery; However, CAR Clause May Need To Be Amended To Allow Routine Costs Recovery.      Brokerage company successfully defended against a cross-complaint brought by sellers, sellers who were also successfully sued by buyers of an expensive Pacific Palisades residence in the same case. Broker defended against the cross-complaint by arguing

Fee Clause Interpretation: Certain Tort Claims Were Too Independent And Not “Related To” Contractual Agreement

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation

  Trial Court Denying Fee Recovery Against Dismissing Tort Litigants Affirmed.      In Old CFI, Inc. v. Case Financial, Inc., Case No. B251404 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Aug. 28, 2014) (unpublished), plaintiff dismissed tort claims on the eve of trial, with defendants being dismissed requesting an award of contractual attorney’s fees as the prevailing party.

Scroll to Top