Second District, Division 6 Applies Exception to the General Rule. Generally, a judgment for damages under a contract replaces a defendant’s duty to perform the contract, which extinguishes any fee clause upon entry of judgment (except for postjudgment recovery of fees as specified under the CRC). (Jaffe v. Pacelli, 165 Cal.App.4th 927, 934.) […]
Fourth District, Division 3 Agrees With Trial Court—“This Is An Easy One.” It is not that often that an appellate court agrees with a trial court’s assessment that “this is an easy one.” Well, you have that end result in the next case we review. In Golden Rain Foundation v. Lyon, Case No.
Court of Appeal Construes Judgment By Its Terms and Per CCP § 685.020(a). So, here is one for all of you judgment enforcement addicts. (Are there such things? Some, we likely believe.) Commercial tenant did pretty well in a convoluted lease modification and rent renewal dispute, beating the claims of landlord as
Fourth District, Division 3 Found Fee Recovery Justified Even Though Satisfaction Demand Not Delivered Per Statute. Code of Civil Procedure section 724.050 provides the exclusive procedure for compelling an acknowledgment of satisfaction of judgment, requiring the party demanding the acknowledgment to deliver its demand with certain warnings either personally or by U.S. mail. A
Sixth District Likes Trial Court’s Rulings Across the Board on Fee Issues. In Exatron, Inc. DiFrancesco, Case No. H033094 (6th Dist. Dec. 9, 2009) (unpublished), plaintiff’s prior attorney’s fees and costs award from a contractual arbitration against defendant were affirmed in a prior appellate decision. Nine months later, plaintiff filed for supplemental fees
Judgment Creditor Also Not Entitled to Prevailing Party Fees Under Judgment Enforcement Statute Even Though No Net Monetary Recovery Gained Under the Statute. Here is a fairly arcane decision for you practitioners that are judgment enforcement specialists, affirming an award of costs to judgment debtors and denying judgment creditor’s appeal that he was
Third District Reverses Trial Court Recognition of Fee Award from Britain. In the next one, Brits might think that we pesky U.S. rebels just have it in for them. Not quite, it simply was a technical interpretation of what awards can and cannot be enforced under the Uniform Foreign Money-Judgments Recognition Act, Civil Code
Third District Finds No Basis to Make Attorney Liable for Judgment Against Client. In Monier-Kilgore v. Flores, Case No. C054502 (3d Dist. June 30, 2009) (unpublished), an attorney was paid about $532,000 in fees after helping his clients collect insurance proceeds from two recalcitrant insurers (receiving his contingency portion) and defending clients against plaintiffs’
Judgment Creditor’s Use of Clerk Default Fee Schedule Did Not Give Basis to Deny Fee Award, But Other Bases Did. Under our category “Judgment Enforcement,” we previously have discussed the operation of Code of Civil Procedure section 685.040, which provides that attorney’s fees incurred in enforcing a judgment are recoverable as an element of
First District, Division 1 Grants Writ of Mandate Because Trial Court Failed to Exercise Any Discretion on Undertaking for Substantial Cost/Fees Order. This post is somewhat complimentary to our June 12, 2009 post on Tracy v. Tracy, where a reversal and remand was required because a trial court failed to actually exercise its discretion
