Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation

Fees Clause Interpretation: Does Clause Mandating Award Of “Actual Costs And Expenses” To Prevailing Party Mean Actual Or Reasonable Fees?

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Section 1717

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 […]

Fee Clause Interpretation/Section 1717: Successful Defense Of Contractual Claim Garners Fee Recovery, But Successful Defense Of Tort Claims Does Not

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Section 1717

  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

INTERPRETATION OF FEES CLAUSE: Court Of Appeal Reverses $22,500 Fees Recovery Because Contractual Fees Clause Did Not Encompass Broker-Salesman Litigation Work

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation

  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.

Appeal/Interpretation of Fee Clause: Appellate Court Finds Challenge To Fee Entitlement Was Forfeited

Cases: Appealability, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation

  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

Fee Clause Interpretation: Contractual Fees Clause Led To Affirmance Of Substantial Fee Award, Because Cross-Complaint Did Not Implicate Contract Claims

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation

$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

Fee Clause Interpretation: Later Independent Contractor Agreement Did Not Extinguish Fee Clause In Earlier Purchase Agreement

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation

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

Fee Clause Interpretation: Broadly Worded Fee Clause Relating To Any Initiated Litigation In Connection With Obstruction Justified Substantial Fee Award Against Losing Party

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation

  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

Fee Clause Interpretation: Mutual Consent To Contract With Fees Clause Enough–No Legal Requirement To Sign A Contract With The Clause

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation

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

Civil Code Section 1717/Fees Clause Interpretation: $33,500 Fee Affirmed Under Reciprocity Principles

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Section 1717

Settlement Agreement Fees Clause Was Broad, Making Blickman Inapt.      The breadth of a fees clause will often determine whether Civil Code section 1717 reciprocity principles apply. For example, very narrow clauses were found not to give rise to reciprocity in Blickman Turkus, L.P. v. MF Downtown Sunnyvalle, LLC, 162 Cal.App.4th 858 (2008) and Real

Scroll to Top