Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation

Family Law, Fee Clause Interpretation: Narrower Fees Clause Did Not Preempt Family Code Section 2030/271 Fee Award To Wife

Cases: Family Law, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation

  Clause Much Narrower Than Preemptive Fees Clause in Guilardi Opinion.      Ex-wife in Marriage of Dryer, Case No. H038921 (6th Dist. Feb. 20, 2015) (unpublished) garnered Family Code section 2030/271 fees totaling $60,000 against ex-husband, who principally argued that a marital settlement agreement (MSA) fees clause was broad enough to “trump” fee recovery under […]

Allocation, Fee Clause Interpretation, Lodestar, Reasonableness Of Fees, Section 998: Prevailing Attorneys In Collection Suit Against Ex-Client Sustain $1.532M Fee Award And $123K Expert Witness Fee Award On Appeal When Attorneys Recovered Base Collection

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees, Cases: Section 998

  Fees Clause Was Broadly Worded, Former Attorneys Represented Client In Seven Suits, and Section 998 Rejection Gave Rise to Expert Witness Fee Award.      This next opinion, Calvo Fisher & Jacob LLP v. Lujan, Case No. A139863 (1st Dist., Div. 2 Feb. 19, 2015) (published), is must reading for both litigants and attorneys involved

Fee Clause Interpretation, Judgment Enforcement: Fee Recovery In Counsel Disqualification Proceeding And Alter Ego Amendment Proceeding Properly Awarded

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Judgment Enforcement

  LLC Operating Agreement Clause Was Broad and Post-Judgment Activity Recovery Broadened Under 1992 Amendment.      In Fiscal Funding Co., Inc. v. Dones, Case No. A140460 (1st Dist., Div. 3 Feb. 13, 2015) (unpublished), Fiscal Funding brought a writ petition to unsuccessfully challenge an arbitrator’s decision to disqualify an attorney, who happened to be the

Fee Clause Interpretation/Section 1717: Plaintiff Machine Buyer Properly Denied Fees Against Defendant Machine Manufacturer

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation

  No Fees Clause In Express Warranty Provisions, With Fees Clauses In Documents With A Different Lender Party.      Under Civil Code section 1717, you must have a contractual or third-party beneficiary/subrogation/successor relationship of some sort in order to press for fee recovery. These crucial relationships were missing in MGM Equipment Leasing Co., LLC v.

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

Scroll to Top