First District, Division 2 Determines Fee Clause Only Allows For Recovery of Fees in Arbitration Proceeding. Unless there is ambiguity or mistake, courts are generally charged with enforcing contracts as written. This applies equally to fee clauses in contracts, as the next unpublished decision illustrates. In Quraishi v. Delta Pools and Patios, Inc., […]
First District, Division Five Follows Blickman Turkus and Sessions Decisions. This next case is a virtual paradigm for students of fees clauses in exclusive listing agreements involving MLS brokers who sue sellers and then lose. It deals with judicial estoppel and fee clause interpretation issues frequently seen in these types of disputes. Menasco
Second District, Division 5 Sustains Award Based on Broad Fees Clause in Settlement Agreement and Confirms 60 Day Fee Deadline Does Not Apply in Probate Litigation Matters. Most of the time in probate matters, attorney’s fees are awarded for services to an estate. (Estate of Trynin, 47 Cal.2d 265, 272-273; see also cases
Court of Appeal Discusses Numerous Issues Under the Two Statutes. In a complicated construction dispute between window subcontractor and other construction professionals sued for equitable indemnity and contribution, the Fourth District, Division 1 reversed and affirmed some fee awards against window subcontractor after overturning a judgment on the pleadings, affirming a summary judgment as
Second District Panel Splits 2-1 on Whether Contractual Clause Allowed for Fee Recovery From Post-Arbitration Judicial Proceeding Win Before the “Dispute” Was Finally Resolved. The next case illustrates how even appellate jurists will come to different conclusions when construing a contractual fees clause where the matter is one for de novo review based on
Second District, Division Seven Awards Fees To Broker Based On Fraud and Fees Clause in Brokerage Agreement. Normally, Civil Code section 1717 does not allow recovery for fraud counts, unless the fees clause is broadly worded. (See our category “Cases: Section 1717.”) However, practitioners should not forget that fee recovery may be possible
Sixth District So Rules In Sustaining Fee Award For Some Work By Winning Litigant’s Attorneys Before and After Arbitration Proceeding. Defendant suffered an adverse arbitration award of $67,089.16 to plaintiff for failing to pay plaintiff his value in a health center pursuant to a second buy-out agreement. The arbitrator awarded arbitration costs/fees, but ordered
Second District, Division One Sustains Denial of Fee Recovery Without Predicate Underpinnings for an Award. The first step of any analysis for recovery of fees is to locate a statute or contractual clause authorizing their recovery. Without this, the American Rule will usually preclude any efforts to recoup incurred attorney’s fees in litigation. The
Fourth District, Division Three Reverses A Fee Award Based on Lack of “Incorporation” Verbiage in Sub-Sublease. The next case shows that use of the words “subject to” rather than “incorporation” language may impede an award of attorney’s fees to a winning party in a sublease dispute context. In Head and Neck Associates v.
Second District, Division Four Determines Landlord Prevailed and Dismisses Other Technical Challenges to Major Portion of Fee Award. Tenant got caught up in an imbroglio with her Landlords when she moved her business into a residential apartment after the roof of her off-premises store collapsed. After being served with an eviction
