$35,000 Fee Award Vacated By Second District, Division 5. Where the contents of a contractual fees clause is clear in nature (with no factual disputes), this sets up an issue of law that an appellate court can review de novo. (Winet v. Price, 4 Cal.App.4th 1159, 1165-1166 (1992).) That is exactly what happened […]
Second District, Division 2 Answers the Question Under Civil Code Section 1717. We have seen numerous contracts that have attorney’s fees clauses that read something like this: “In any action between the parties arising out of or in relation to this Agreement, including any collection attempts should Payment not be timely made, the prevailing
Breadth of Clauses Are the Determinative Factors. By way of summary adjudication, nonsuit, and directed verdict, defendants beat contract and tort claims brought by plaintiffs, with the two defendants (Mr. Sun and C2) seeking postjudgment attorney’s fees awards but only C2 garnering a $120,000 fee award for prevailing on an implied covenant contract
Second District, Division 3 Finds Contractual Interpretation of Fees Clause Was Wrong By Lower Court. Where there is no conflict in evidence (usually meaning divergent parol evidence), appellate courts will independently construe contractual provisions as a matter of law. In doing so, they may disagree with a lower court’s construction in the process.
No Apportionment Needed, Fourth District, Division 3 Rules. In the next case, there was a broad attorney’s fees clause that awarded fees to the prevailing party in any action “founded in tort, contract, or equity that in any way [relates to] the contract or is brought because of an alleged dispute in connection
Appellants Had Only Contested Amount of Fees Below, Not Raising Problems With Fee Entitlement. Here is one from the Third District that serves to underscore a crucial lesson for both trial and appellate practitioners: raise challenges at the lower court level or risk having them declared waived at the appellate level. That happened
$401,654 on Sole Contract Claim Sustained on Appeal by Sixth District. In this category, the breadth of a fees clause may be case determinative when measured against the actual claims or cross-claims brought by a party. No more and no less, as the next case demonstrates–with the appellate court carefully analyzing the cross-claims at
Fifth District Finds No Novation Under the Circumstances. Here is a contractual interpretation/novation case that presents a set of circumstances we have not reported on to date. In Miller v. London Properties, Case No. F059259 (5th Dist. Jan. 13, 2011) (unpublished), defendant brokers prevailed in a contractual dispute with plaintiffs over their purchase
Second District, Division 6 Affirms $210,697.50 Fee Award. Judges, as much as anyone, do try to be pragmatic in awarding fees, which are frequently based on equitable considerations. Here is one illustrating that principle, even though the breadth of the fees clause and intertwinement of issues well supported the result legally. In
Second District, Division Reverses Trial Court’s Decision to Not Entertain Fee Request on the Merits. In C-1 Construction v. Choi, Case No. B217012 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Dec. 3, 2010) (unpublished), C-1 obtain a compensatory award from defendants based on claims it was not allowed to finish certain construction work agreed to under an
