Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation

Fee Clause Interpretation, Retainer Agreements, Section 1717: Postjudgment Order Awarding Attorney $1,232,735 In § 1717 Fees And Costs Incurred Defending Against Former Client’s Tort And Contractual Claims And Cross-Claim For Unpaid Fees Affirmed

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Retainer Agreements, Cases: Section 1717

Retainer Agreement’s Broadly-Worded Fee Provision Allowed For Recovery Of Fees For Attorney’s Defense Of All Claims By Former Client, Including Tort Claims – The Defense Of Which Were Necessary To Defeat The Contractual Claim.             In Singh v. Molnar, Case No. B303366 (2d Dist., Div. 7 April 30, 2021) (unpublished), defendant attorney was awarded $1,232,735 […]

Deeds Of Trust, Fee Clause Interpretation: Third District Affirms $133,176.15 Fees And Costs Award To Lender Defeating Plaintiff’s Lawsuit For Wrongful Foreclosure, Concealment And Breach Of Contract

Cases: Deeds of Trust, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation

Fee-Shifting Provisions In The Parties’ Loan Documents Entitled Prevailing Lender To Fees For Defending Foreclosure And Enforcing Plaintiff’s Debt Obligation, And Were Worded Broadly Enough To Encompass Both Contract And Tort Causes Of Action.             In Simon v. Wells Fargo Bank, Case No. C086688 (3d Dist. April 12, 2021) (unpublished), plaintiff sued Wells Fargo

Fee Clause Interpretation, Landlord/Tenant: $93,913.85 Fee Award In Favor Of Residential Defendant Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Landlord/Tenant

Conversion Claim Arose From The Lease, With Other Arguments Forfeited On Appeal.             Where appellants fail to make arguments at the trial court level or in an appellant’s opening brief, they may be subject to having their challenges forfeited on appeal.  That largely happened in Ghannoum v. Sevier, Case No. B304026 (2d Dist., Div. 2

Fee Clause Interpretation, Section 1717: $795,728 Fee Award To Litigant Affirmed On Appeal Based On Broad Stock Purchase Agreement Fees Clause, But $926,170 Fee Request Properly Denied As Untimely As Well As Not Allowed Under Promissory Notes Fees Clause

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Section 1717

In The End, This Dispute Was Driven By The Fee Clauses “Four Corner” Interpretation.             Justice Fybel, as the authoring justice in Dohr v. Lintz, Case Nos. G056144/G058796 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Mar. 24, 2021) (unpublished), was faced with consolidated appeals where a $795,728 fee award was trying to be sustained and where a $926,170

Fee Clause Interpretation, Section 1717, Unlicensed Contractor: Section 1717 Fees Of $231,834 To Defendant Prevailing Against Statutory Claims Affirmed “Because Of” Broad Fee Provision In Parties’ Contract

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

Parties’ Fee Provision Encompassed Tort and Statutory Causes Of Action Commenced “Because Of” An Alleged Breach Of Contract.             In San Francisco CDC LLC v. Webcor Construction L.P., Case Nos. A156669/A157650 (1st Dist., Div. 1 March 19, 2001) (published), plaintiff paid defendants approximately $144 million for the construction of a hotel in San Francisco.  Eight

Arbitration, Fee Clause Interpretation, Reasonableness Of Fees, Section 1717: $1,237,501 Million Fee Award For Arbitration, Creditors Action, And Related Proceedings Affirmed On Appeal

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

Broad Fee Clauses Were The Bases For The Affirmed Award.             In Currency Corp. v. Wertheim, LLC, Case No. B276506 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Mar. 2, 2021) (unpublished), Wertheim initiated legal proceedings spanning 15 years, culminating in an arbitration in which it achieved nothing (according to the DCA panel) because part of the award was

Fee Clause Interpretation, Section 1717: In San Diego Real Estate Investment Dispute, One Fee Award Of $227,734.32 Reversed While Another Fee Award Of $75,262.50 Affirmed

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Section 1717

Whether Fee Clause Was “On The Contract” Or Fell Within The Fee Clause Language Determined The Results In This Case.             In the attorney’s fees area in California state courts where contractual fee clauses are at issue, key issues are whether a prevailing party actually prevailed “on a contract” for fee entitlement under Civil Code

Fee Clause Interpretation, Section 1717: Attorney Fees Awarded To Prevailing Plaintiff On Its Tort Cause Of Action Reversed On Appeal

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Section 1717

The Fees Clause In The Parties’ Contract Covered Only Contract Claims And Plaintiff’s Tort Claim Was Not Inextricably Intertwined With Its Dismissed Contract Claim.             In WindAirWest v. Castle & Cooke, Case Nos. B295513 and B299043 (2d Dist., Div. 3 January 8, 2021) (unpublished), plaintiff, an operator of a private jet charter company, entered into

Fee Clause Interpretation: $1,487,990.30 Attorney’s Fees Award Based On Settlement Agreement Contractual Fees Clause Affirmed In Favor Of Prevailing Mobile Home Plaintiffs

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation

Appellate Court Rejected Election Of Remedies Argument Where Plaintiffs Prevailed On Both Contract And Tort Claims With Overlapping, Yet Different, Facts.             Mobile home park/related property management defendants had reached an earlier settlement with two mobile home residents, with the settlement agreement having a contractual fees clause for a breach limited to contract claims.  Subsequently,

Consumer Statutes, Fee Clause Interpretation, Settlement: $65,000 Attorney’s Fees Award And $7,987.40 Costs Award Under Lemon Law Settlement Stipulation Are Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Consumer Statutes, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Settlement

Lower Court Properly Harmonized Seemingly Conflicting Terms Of Settlement Stipulation.             In Boykin v. Premier Universal, Inc., Case No. F078689 (5th Dist. Dec. 17, 2020) (unpublished), the parties settled a lemon law case, but reserved the issue of recovery of attorney’s fees for a subsequent motion.  The problem was that the settlement stipulation had conflicting

Scroll to Top