Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation

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

Equity/Fee Clause Interpretation/Section 1717: Prevailing Plaintiffs In LLC Dissolution Dispute Entitled To Fee Recovery Under Broadly Worded LLC Operating Agreement Fee Clause

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

  Pre-Appraisal Participation in Litigating Issues Meant Corp. Code Section 17351(b) Did Not Trump Broadly Worded Fees Clause.      Kashian v. Simonian, Case No. F064325 (5th Dist. Aug. 28, 2013) (unpublished) was a business litigation war between two founding member sides of an LLC. Plaintiffs filed for fiduciary duty breach, declaratory relief, and LLC judicial

Arbitration/Fee Clause Interpretation/Section 1717: Interesting Cross-Issue Case–Party Enjoining Arbitration Was Not Adverse Prevailing Party

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

  Court Can Award 1717 Fees With Enforceable Limitations–Such As, Did Adverse Party Acted Arbitrarily, Vexatiously, In Bad Faith Or Unreasonably–You Bethca!      We like Abbey v. Fortune Drive Associates, LLC, Case No. A135062 (1st Dist., Div. 1 July 29, 2013) (unpublished) for a lot, if not a couple of, reasons: (1) it talks about

Fee Clause Interpretation/Section 1717: Nonsignatory Successor Correctly Exposed To Fee Exposure Where Complaint And Cross-Complaint Sought Interpretation Of Settlement Agreement With A Fees Clause

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

  Primary Right Showed Contractual Dispute Involved.      In CT Glendale, LLC v. Liu, Case No. B241445 (2d Dist., Div. 2 July 17, 2013) (unpublished), plaintiff obtained $37,612 in Civil Code section 1717 contractual fees in a litigation dispute interpreting which party owned cabinetry under a settlement agreement also containing a fees clause. Plaintiff won

Bankruptcy/Fee Clause Interpretation: Broadly Worded Fees Clause Rescues The Day For Winning Creditor

Cases: Bankruptcy Efforts, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation

CCP § 1021, Not Civil Code § 1717, Afforded Relief.     In re Charalambous (Hamilton v. Charalambous), BAP No. CC-13-1042-PDKi (BAP 9th Cir. Mem. Decision July 3, 2013) (unpublished) is an illustration of how one needs to carefully pick the basis for fee entitlement. Although Civil Code section 1717 is an attractive first impulse ground,

Fee Clause Interpretation/Section 1717: Plaintiffs Winning Lease Dispute Under Broad Fees Clause Entitled To $158,180.75 Fee Recovery

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Section 1717

  Defendant Recovered Less on Cross-Complaint Contractual Claim, So Plaintiffs Prevailed.      Julius Castle Restaurant, Inc. v. Payne, Case Nos. A130955 (1st Dist., Div. 1 June 10, 2013) (partially published; fee discussion not published) may be one of the first published cases discussing post-Riverisland factors for the courts and juries to consider after the overruling

Fee Clause Interpretation: Clause With “Prevailing Party” Language Not Limited To Contract Claims Allowed Fees To Plaintiff Prevailing On Negligence Claim But Suffering Defeat On Contract Claim

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation

  CCP § 1021 Trumped Civil Code § 1717 Rules, With Plaintiff Prevailing “Overall.”       Under Civil Code section 1717, a prevailing party can receive attorney’s fees based on prevailing under a contract claim, even though losing tort claims, if the fees clause is limited to contractual claims. However, if the fee clause is broader,

Fee Clause Interpretation/Homeowner Associations: HOA Not Entitled To Fee Recovery For Fiduciary Duty Victory Because Administration Of CC&Rs Fees Clause Doesn’t Cover Fiduciary Breach Claims

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Homeowner Associations

       In Hoofman v. Pacific Crest Community Assn., Case No. B230036 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Apr. 16, 2013) (unpublished), an HOA won some breach of fiduciary claims against homeowners. However, they were denied fee recovery. The appellate court affirmed, finding that the win on the breach of fiduciary claims did not fall within the

Fee Clause Interpretation: Specific Performance Claim Gave Rise To Fee Entitlement Under Broadly-Worded Contractual Fees Clause

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation

  $252,926.33 Fee Award Affirmed.      In Milano v. Edelson, Case No. B237971 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Apr. 11, 2013) (unpublished), buyer of a restaurant sued a seller for specific performance, deliberately electing that remedy over damages in order to get out to trial earlier. The stock purchase agreement, while lacking a “time is of

Scroll to Top