Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation

Construction, Fee Clause Interpretation: Because Surety’s 2010 Contract Had A Fees Clause, It Was Erroneous To Deny Fees Based On A 2015 Contract Having No Such Clause

Cases: Construction, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation

2015 Contract Necessarily Referenced The 2010 Contract, So Remand Was Necessary To Determine If Fee Allocation Was Necessary And The Reasonableness Of Surety’s Request.                In FEI Enterprises, Inc. v. Massachusetts Bay Ins. Co., Case No. B329502 (2d Dist., Div. 2 Apr. 4, 2024) (unpublished), surety won a summary judgment against its general contractor for […]

Allocation, Fee Clause Interpretation, Section 1717: Intervening Insurer Not Responsible For Fees To Prevailing Party, While Litigant Losing Alter Ego Arguments Was Responsible For Fees

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

Lower Court Also Did Not Err By Awarding Insurer Rate Fees To A Prevailing Party, Apportioning Out Noncompensable Fees.                Yee v. Weinberg, Case No. A163850 et al. (1st Dist., Div. 4 Mar. 5, 2024) (unpublished) is a situation where a plaintiff landlord prevailed against defendant tenant, with landlord receiving some fees (but none against

Estoppel, Fee Clause Interpretation, Section 1717: Lower Court’s Denial Of Attorney’s Fees To Prevailing Plaintiffs In CC&R Flag Pole Placement Dispute Was An Abuse Of Discretion

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

Judicial Estoppel Applied And Plaintiffs Were The Unqualified Winners.                In Rowan v. Hilliard, Case No. D081687 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Feb. 29, 2024) (unpublished), plaintiffs prevailed against defendants/cross-complainants in a flag pole placement dispute under CC&Rs, which had a fees clause giving the lower court the authority (“shall have the authority”) to award reasonable

Fee Clause Interpretation, Prevailing Party, Section 1717: Lower Court Erroneously Denied Attorney’s Fees To Plaintiff Who Obtained A Majority Of What She Wanted In A Loan Agreement Case With A Fees Clause Only Covering A Judicial Foreclosure Case

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

Under Civil Code Section 1717, Lack of Recital Saying Contract Was Negotiated/Executed With Counsel Representation Kept The Clause From Applying Narrowly, With The Matter Remanded For Purposes Of Determining If Plaintiff Was The Prevailing Party For Fees Even Though Plaintiff Did Not Pursue Routine Costs Recovery.             In Andrade v. Western Riverside Council of Governments,

Employment, Fee Clause Interpretation, Prevailing Party, Settlement, Special Fee Shifting Statutes: Denial Of Labor Code Section 1194 Attorney Fees To Plaintiffs Who Incurred Post-Settlement Fees After Employer Breached The Settlement Agreement Reversed

Cases: Employment, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Settlement, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Because The Fees Provision In The Parties’ Settlement Agreement Did Not Address Fees Incurred Post-Settlement, Plaintiffs Were Entitled To Recovery Under Section 1194, But Only As To Fees Incurred In Conducting Discovery And Litigating To Trial, Not In Enforcing The Settlement Agreement.             In Lorta v. Bishop, Case No. G062166 (4th Dist., Div. 3

Fee Clause Interpretation: Easement Language Only Referencing “Costs And Expenses Of Defense” Arising From The Easement Properly Found Not To Encompass Attorney’s Fees

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation

Failure To Reference Attorney’s Fees Was Fatal To Fee Recovery.             Draftsmanship, draftsmanship, draftsmanship is the theme of the case we next post on, Smith v. Guillosson, Case No. B322717 (2d Dist., Div. 2 Jan. 30, 2024) (unpublished).              Plaintiff/cross-defendant prevailed on a patio and a walkway easement dispute where there were clauses indicating that

Fee Clause Interpretation: No Attorney’s Fees Exposure In Court Action Because Operative Contractual Fees Clause Only Applied To Arbitration Activities

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation

Choosing Litigation Over Arbitration Means The Party Did Decide To Forego Fees.             Roberts v. Crandell, Case No. B320951 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Jan. 26, 2024) (unpublished) is yet another unpublished decision with reasoning which supports the view that a litigant choosing to litigate in court, rather than arbitration (where the contractual fee clause only

Family Law, Fee Clause Interpretation, Indemnity: Some Parts Affirmed, Some Parts Reversed And Remanded In Appeal Involving Community Or Separate Property Liability For Indemnification Obligations

Cases: Family Law, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Indemnity

Also, Fee/Costs Award Under Indemnity Agreement Only Recoverable Against Ex-Husband, A Signatory To The Agreement, But No Fee Exposure Under The Third-Party Indemnity Provision; Needs-Based Fees Paid To Both Spouses Are Separate Debts Of Husband For His Need-Based Fees And Community Debts For Fees To Both Spouses.             Acting Presiding Justice Moore, in In re

Fee Clause Interpretation, Section 1717: Lower Court Erred In Denying Fees To A Parties’ Successor Under An Easement Settlement Agreement

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Section 1717

Fees Clause Did Encompass The Parties And Their Successors.             In Elusive 8307, LLC v. Canterman, Case No. B321096 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Jan. 3, 2024) (unpublished), prior owners of plaintiff's and defendant's adjacent properties entered into a settlement agreement granting an easement to plaintiff over a portion of defendant’s property.  Plaintiff lost an easement

Fee Clause Interpretation, Landlord/Tenant: Unlawful Detainer Action Did Not Arise Out Of Lease Fees Clause Given That Foreclosing Landlord Was Suing On A Statutory Basis For Obtaining Possession

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Landlord/Tenant

Unique Facts Of The Case Governed The Outcome.             The breadth or narrow nature of a contractual fees clause frequently can determine whether fee entitlement exists in a case.  De Witte Mortgage Investors Fund, LLC v. Carradine, Case No. B322747 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Dec. 19, 2023) (unpublished) vindicates that general principle.  Briefly stated, an

Scroll to Top