Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation

Section 1717 And Unlicensed Contractor: No One Is Happy About $2,000 Fee Recovery

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Section 1717, Cases: Unlicensed Contractors

Award Is Sustained, But Winning Subcontractor Under Contract With Fees Clause Fights Back Unlicensed General Contractor’s Illegality Argument.      Usually, under our category “Unlicensed Contractors,” we are dealing with decisions where an unlicensed contractor wins a dispute with a fees clause and attempts to obtain an award of attorney’s fees—not very successfully. In the next […]

Section 1717 And Fees Clause Interpretation: Fee Denials Against Apartment Seller And Escrow Company Reversed And Remanded For Reconsideration

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717

  Second District, Division 7 Finds Reversal of Prejudgment Interest Issue Requires Reexamination of Prevailing Party Determination and the Escrow Instructions Fee Clauses Were Sufficiently Broad for Fee Entitlement Purposes      In Marina Glencoe, L.P. v. Malibu Escrow Corp., Case No. B203415 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Mar. 1, 2010) (unpublished), an apartment building purchaser recovered

Fee Clause Interpretation, 998 Offers, And Routine Costs: A Three-Fer In One Case—And A Resultant POOF! Upon Reversal Of The Fee Award

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: POOF!, Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 998

Substantial Fee Award Reversed Because Fees Provision Did Not Reach Noncontract Recovery, While Rest of Trial Court’s Fee/Costs Orders Affirmed on Appeal.      In Gaggero v. First Federal Bank of California, Case No. B207273 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Nov. 30, 2009) (unpublished), Borrower voluntarily dismissed with prejudice his equitable, statutory and breach of contract claims,

Prevailing Party And Fee Clause Interpretation Issues: Court Of Appeal Sustains Trial Court Denial Of Fees To Either Side

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Prevailing Party

Fourth District, Division 1 Utilizes “Pragmatic” Prevailing Party Test and Determines Narrow Fee Clause Did Not Allow For Recovery on Successful Tort Claim.      In a dispute involving a brokerage arrangement with respect to a mobile home, seller won a small compensatory and punitive damages jury verdict against brokers for breach of fiduciary duty, although

Fee Clause Interpretation and 998 Offers: Court Of Appeal Remands $400,000 Fee Award against Contractor But Affirms Separate $296,148.84 Against Contractor In Favor of Subcontractor

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Section 1717, Cases: Section 998

Fourth District, Division 1 Address Plethora of Fee Issues in Unpublished Decision.      Well, strap your helmets on, readers, because we now synopsize a 75-page unpublished decisions dealing with a cornucopia (a good word in celebration of upcoming Thanksgiving) of attorney’s fees issues under California law.      In The Gifted Schools v. Grahovac Construction Co.,

Fee Clause Interpretation And Allocation: Substantial Fee Award Affirmed Where Fees Clause Was Broad In Nature And All Claims Based On Same Operative Facts

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation

Fourth District, Division 2 Sustains $382,233.25 Fee Award Under Code of Civil Procedure Section 1021.      As we have reminded readers before, a broad fee clause will frequently give winning litigants a “big bonus” for fee recovery purposes: the broader the clause, the better the chances that noncontractual claims will be found to give rise

Fee Clause Interpretation: Landlord Awarded Substantial Attorney Fees For Prevailing In Three Actions Against Feisty Former Tenant

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees, Cases: Section 1717, Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees

  Court of Appeal Finds Fee Clause is Broad Enough to Encompass All Three Actions.      Under Civil Code section 1717, the key to recovering fees in disputes involving contract and tort claims often devolves to a determination of whether the fee clause is sufficiently broad to encompass matters “arising out of” or “concerning” the

Fee Clause Interpretation: Narrowly-Worded Fee Clause Did Not Allow For Fee Recovery By Attorney In Successfully Defending Against Legal Malpractice Action

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Section 1717

Fourth District, Division 1 So Holds In a Result Consonant With Prior Reviewed Decisions on this Website.      Here is one we have seen before, but bears repeating.      Attorney sues to collect on a receivable owed from a former client, but through a cross-complaint after client sues for legal malpractice. Attorney prevails in both

Civil Code Section 1717: Nonsignatories Who Were Intended To Be Parties Can Be Entitled To Contractual Fee Recovery Even Though Contractual Clauses Are Very Limited In Nature

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Section 1717

Second District, Division 4 Explores Some “Nooks and Crannies” of Section 1717 in Unpublished Opinion.      This next case, albeit unpublished, is a very scholarly discussion of Civil Code section 1717, exploring nonsignatory and fee clause breadth issues. And, best for us, only a challenge to a denial of attorney’s fees is involved. So, with

Scroll to Top