Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation

Fee Clause Interpretation/Section 1717: Narrow Fee Clause Limited To Settlement Agreement “Parties” Could Not Encompass Different Persons, Even If Third Party Beneficiaries To The Fee Clause

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Section 1717

  Blickman Decision Found Persuasive By Appellate Court.      In a somewhat complicated post-probate settlement context, beneficiaries of a trust prevailed against a law firm–which had been previously owned by both the current owner and the deceased trustor of the trust—by obtaining a favorable summary judgment ruling based on a probate settlement agreement entered into […]

Fee Clause Interpretation: Fee Clause Allowing Recovery To Defend A Proceeding Arising From Prior Settlement Agreement Gave Rise To Fee Entitlement

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation

  Lower Court Erroneously Interpreted the Clause Too Narrowly.      Lasertone Corp. v. E.S.E Electronic, Case No. B248908 (2d Dist., Div. 2 June 17, 2014) (unpublished) involved a fight over enforcement of a settlement with a fees clause. After a lower court granted plaintiff’s motion to enforce a settlement agreement, the defense appealed and lost

Fee Clause Interpretation/Section 1717: Party Under Merger Agreement Was Not Entitled To Fees Against Losing Party Under Separate Agreement (Not The Merger Agreement) With No Fees Clause Or Third Party Beneficiary Status

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Section 1717

  Agreements Were Unambiguous, Not Allowing For Fee Recovery.      Where contracts with no extrinsic conflicts are involved, appellate courts will construe agreements by their terms—no fees clause, no fee recovery..      That is what happened in Sznyter v. Spun.com, Inc., Case No. D061832 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Apr. 25, 2014) (unpublished).      The basics

Allocation/Estoppel/Fee Clause Interpretation/Section 1717/Reasonableness Of Fees: Real Estate Buyer’s Tort Claims Did Not Give Rise To Fee Exposure Under Narrowly-Worded Fees Clause

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Estoppel, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees, Cases: Section 1717

  However, Sellers Were Liable To Third-Party For Losing Their Contractual/Indemnity Claims, Which Were Intertwined And Needed No Apportionment.      Real estate buyer lost tort/statutorily-based nondisclosure claims to the sellers in a dispute where a purchase agreement had a fees clause mandating fees in an action brought “with respect to the subject matter of enforcement

Construction/Fee Clause Interpretation: Where Payment Bond Made Clear That Surety Not Liable To Additional Fees/Costs Above Penal Bond Sum, Party Obtaining Fees In Derogation Of This Limitation Not Entitled to Fees

Cases: Construction, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: POOF!

  Only County Entitled to Additional Fees/Costs Over Penal Sum Based on Clear Terms in Payment Bond.      In Granite Constr. Co. v. Bond Safeguard Ins. Co., Case No. C066759 (3d Dist. Mar. 13, 2014) (unpublished), surety under a payment bond lost an exoneration argument at trial based on a settlement agreement which had a

Estoppel/Fee Clause Interpretation: Winning Subcontractor In Contractual Litigation Not Entitled To Fee Recovery Where Contract Clause Only Applied To Arbitration

Cases: Estoppel, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation

  Contract Crystal Clear, Meaning $172,850.02 Fee Award Went POOF!      This one had to hurt.      In Ponce v. Philco Construction, Inc., Case No. G049097 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Jan. 21, 2014) (unpublished), contractor Philco subcontracted work out on a Moreno Valley auto service store to subcontractor Ponce, who was not paid for all

Fee Clause Interpretation/Section 1717: Fourth District, Division 3, In Unpublished Decision Determines That Contractual “Actual Fees” Clause Subject To Civil Code Section 1717 Reasonableness Requirement

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Section 1717

  Earlier, Second District, Division 2 Came to Same Result in Unpublished Opinion.      Reasonableness is one of those concepts finding wide application in the law, whether the “reasonable person” in tort or criminal law or what most judges like to see in the positions being taken by practitioners on behalf of their clients.     

Allocation/Fee Clause Interpretation/Prevailing Party: Broadly-Worded Fees Clause Allowed For Recovery Of Fees On Noncontract Claims Following Voluntary Dismissal In Wake Of Pleading Motions

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Prevailing Party

  Fee Motion Properly Filed and No Allocation Between Claims Required.      Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed its contract-based/tortious interference case against one defendant without prejudice in the wake of pending pleading motions, with the trial court determining that fully requested fees of $16,926 were due to prevailing defendant.      Plaintiff’s multi-pronged attack in Oxnard Corner, LLC

Fee Clause Interpretation: Bail Bonds Company’s Failure To Attach Bail Agreement Did Not Establish Entitlement For Contempt Finding Against Non-Party To Bail Agreement

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation

       Bail bonds company, which was not a party to bail agreement involving a surety, claimed it won a contempt proceeding and was entitled to fees under the bail agreement. The lower court disagreed, and bail bonds company appealed.      This result was affirmed in Robinson v. Montana Bail Bonds, Inc., Case No. B246891

Fee Clause Interpretation/Special Fee Shifting Provision: Voluntarily Dismissing Cross-Complainant In Involuntary Dissolution Action/Loser In Limited Partnership Battle Properly Assessed Attorney’s Fees Of Over $527,700 To Winners

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  Limited Partnership Fees Clause Was Broad, And Judicial Dissolution Statute Did Not Retard Fee Exposure.      Limited partnerships (LPs), unfortunately, do foment a lot of legal disputes. No less, in this next case. The problem is that the losing litigant, although dismissing an involuntary dissolution cross-claim, lost both that as well as contractually-based claims

Scroll to Top