Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation

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      In Old CFI, Inc. v. Case Financial, Inc., Case No. B251404 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Aug. 28, 2014) (unpublished), plaintiff dismissed tort claims on the eve of trial, with defendants being dismissed requesting an award of contractual attorney’s fees as the prevailing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

Deeds Of Trust/Fee Clause Interpretation: Plaintiff Losing Tortious Wrongful Foreclosure Claim Against Foreclosing Trustee Gets Hit With $1.256 Million Fee Award

Cases: Deeds of Trust, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation

  Deed of Trust Language Was Expansive Enough to Cover Prevailing Trustee.      For any litigators practicing in the real estate area, we are aware of the extremely broad nature of deed of trust language, which is very pro-beneficiary (the lender usually) or pro-trustee (a title company imbued with authority to nonjudicially foreclose under certain

Fee Clause Interpretation: Narrow Contractual Fees Clause Meant Plaintiff Prevailing In Malicious Prosecution Case Cannot Recoup Fees For Prosecuting Case

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation

  $217,590 Fee Recovery Went POOF!, And Compensatory Damages Will Get Scaled Down For Fees Recovered As Malicious Prosecution Damages.      The Fifth District in Smeed v. Galtar, LLC, Case No. F067110 (5th Dist. Aug. 19, 2014) (unpublished) considered a plaintiff/former defendant seller who won a malicious prosecution case against defendant/former buyer arising from a

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

Scroll to Top