Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation

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

Fee Clause Interpretation: Narrow Provision Requires Elimination Of Fee Award From Default Judgment

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation

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.,

Estoppel And Fee Clause Interpretation: Losing Broker Using MLS Was Not Liable To Winning Seller For Fees Just Because Broker Pled Fee Recovery And When Fees Clause Did Not Encompass Losing Broker

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

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

Probate Settlement: Heir Loses Matter Encompassed By Settlement Agreement Fee Clause, Suffering Adverse Award Of $51,205.36 In Costs and Attorney’s Fees

Cases: Deadlines, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Probate

  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

Construction Litigation: Fourth District, Division 1 Reverses Fee Awards Under Code of Civil Procedure Section 1038 and Reverses/Affirms Others Under Civil Code Section 1717

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

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

Scroll to Top