Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation

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Second District, Division 4 Explores Some “Nooks and Crannies” of Section 1717 in Unpublished Opinion.      This next case, albeit unpublished, is a very scholarly discussion of Civil Code section 1717, exploring nonsignatory and fee clause breadth issues.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 […]

Broad Fees Clause And Failure To Challenge Excessiveness Of Fee To Winner Spells Trouble For Losing Country Club Members

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

  Fourth District, Division 1 Affirms $779,955.97 Postjudgment Fees/Costs Award.      The next case covers several cross-over issues: fees clause interpretation; apportionment between covered and noncovered claims; and reasonableness of fees.      Here we go.      In Urquhart v. Del Mar Country Club, Case No. D052711 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Sept. 28, 2009) (unpublished), a

Voluntary Dismissal Of Tort Claims: Be Careful—If Contract Clause Allows For Recovery, You May Not Seek Refuge Under Santisas

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Section 1717

Second District, Division 1 Affirms Fee Award to Broker Under Broadly Worded CAR Form Agreement.      Under Santisas v. Goodin, 17 Cal.4th 599 (1998), a voluntary dismissal will end fee exposure on contract claims. However, there is a hitch (usually is). The dismissal will not necessarily insulate against fee exposure for tort or noncontract claims.

Special Fee Shifting Statute and Fee Clause Interpretation: Singapore Law Governs Non-Statutory Issues

Cases: Choice of Law, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Preemption, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  Ninth Circuit Reverses Denial of Fees Award, Remanding for A New Look in COGSA, Bill of Lading Case.      So what happens when you have a seemingly statutory choice-of-law clause (that means no attorney’s fees) and a contractual clause (that may mean attorney’s fees) in the same case? Well, if you are the litigant

Fee Clause Interpretation: Narrowly Drawn Settlement Agreement Fees Provision Applying to Affirmative Enforcement Action Does Not Cover Defensive Use

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation

Fourth District, Division 1 Finds Gil v. Mansano Persuasive.      The next case demonstrates that both trial and appellate courts will interpret contractual fee clauses by their terms—if the scope is narrow, the fee recovery will be narrow and restricted in application.      In Tesh v. LeTourneau, Case No. D052873 (4th Dist., Div. 1 May

Nearly $900,000 In Attorney’s Fees Affirmed In Billboard Litigation

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

  Second District, Division 3 Finds Defendant Lessors Prevailed Despite Claim of “Triplicative” Work By Three Law Firms.      The next one is a wild one and illustrates that substantial attorney’s fees will be awarded under Civil Code section 1717 once the court determines which litigants “prevailed” by achieving their main objectives in the germane

Retainer Agreements: Quantum Meruit Award of $22,670.24 To Discharged Contingency Fee Attorney, After Offsets, Is Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Quantum Meruit, Cases: Retainer Agreements

Fourth District, Division 2 Construes “Recovery” Fee Retainer Language Against Drafting Attorney.      The next decision demonstrates that practitioners need to be careful how they draft retainer agreements. Because the drafter is usually an attorney, any ambiguity will likely be construed in favor of the client. That is what occurred in the next case, involving

Civil Code Section 1717 and Fee Clauses Interpretation: Appellate Court Reverses $1,370,604 Fee Award Because Some Recovery Was On Uncovered Fraud Counts And Winner’s Limited Success Required Some Further Apportionment

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

First District, Division 4 Believed Award Needed to Apportion Out Some Fraud Work and Take Into Account Plaintiff’s Limited Success on the Promissory Note Claims.      Who says that appellate courts blindly rubberstamp fee awards by trial courts? The next case certainly demonstrates that this is not the case, with the reviewing courts making sure

Civil Code Section 1717: Trial Court Erred In Denying Fee Award To Defendant Defeating A Lease Purchase Option Specific Performance Claim

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Section 1717

Second District, Division 1 Reverses Fee Denial as Too Restrictive.      We have reviewed many decisions involving interpretation of contractual fees clauses, which involve a construction of the ambit of Civil Code section 1717. In the next case, the appellate court reversed based on the determination that the lower court interpreted the scope of the

Civil Code Section 1717: Without Prejudice Dismissal Of Apartment Fire Damage Suit Did Not Give Rise To Fee Exposure

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Section 1717

  Second District, Division 4 Applies Santisas in Affirming Denial of Fees.      In our category “Leading Cases,” we have listed Santisas v. Goodin, 17 Cal.4th 599 (1998), which held that a voluntary dismissal of contractually-based claims will not lead to fee exposure under Civil Code section 1717. However, Santisas did leave open the exception

Scroll to Top