However, The Cap Did Apply To Fees; So, If The Costs Were Under $1,000, Lower Court Can Reconsider If Any Fees Are Appropriate Up To The $1,000 Ceiling. In Aviles v. Shenon, Case Nos. B342634 et al. (2d Dist., Div. 1 Nov. 2, 2026) (partially published; costs and fee discussion published), a tenant won a
Fee Award Was $50,000, A Contractually Capped Amount, Even Though Defendants’ Counsel Expended $73,865 In Fees. In SM 10000 Property, LLC v. Chakchay, Case No. B350752 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Sept. 9, 2026) (unpublished), plaintiff landlord filed an unlawful detainer action against defendant signatory tenant and two other non-signatory tenants named as occupants. The lower court
One Defendant Was Found To Forfeit All Rights Under The Lease On Summary Adjudication, And The Other Was Not A Lease Signatory. In Morales v. Wang, Case No. B346779 (2d Dist., Div. 2 Aug. 12, 2026) (unpublished), after plaintiffs accepted a defense CCP § 998 offer which was silent on attorney’s fees, plaintiffs moved for
Mediation Noncompliance And Fee Cap Arguments Are Rejected On Appeal. In Karrass v. Carey, Case No. B344608 (2d Dist., Div. 8 July 30, 2026) (unpublished), tenant defensed a landlord in an unlawful detainer action based on an alleged notice to cure violations or quit, a notice found deficient. Later, the trial court awarded tenant prevailing
Denial Of Fees Was Improper, Because Tenants Showed The Written Lease With A Fees Clause Was Inapplicable. In Hernandez v. Kocsis, Case No. G064238 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Feb. 4, 2026) (unpublished), authored by Justice Sanchez, the 4/3 DCA reversed a denial of attorney’s fees requested by plaintiffs/tenants. The case involved a negligence/premises liability case
Absence Of A Settlement Agreement Was Critical, Not To Mention Facts Indicating That Tenants Forced The Dismissal Because Landlords Knew They Might Lose. In Treybig v. Meza, Case No. 2024-01416924 (Orange County Superior Court, App. Div. Nov. 20, 2025, posted Dec. 12, 2025) (published), tenants contested an unlawful detainer by arguing that landlords unreasonably refused
Appellate Court Did Discuss When The Action Is Contract Versus Tort, But The Case Did Not Have Tort Holdover Or Ouster Issues. In an unlawful detainer case, the nature of the case may determine whether a landlord’s voluntarily dismissal allows the tenant an entitlement to attorney’s fees, which invokes the Santisas principle. (See Our
Landlord Accepted Rent Check After Notice To Vacate, Such That A Month-To-Month Tenancy Was Reinstated. In Baca v. Kuang, Case No. A171071 (1st Dist., Div. 5 Jan. 13, 2025) (partially published; fee discussion unpublished), defendant tenant appealed from an unlawful detainer judgment, consisting of $51,560 in contractual attorney’s fees and $24,000 in holdover rent.
However, N.Y. Attorneys’ Time After California Counsel Retained Must Be Stricken Because He Was Not Licensed In California. In Thaunhaeuser v. TKH Zum, LLC, Case No. B321283 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Oct. 11, 2024) (unpublished), the lower court entered a $114,000 compensatory judgment against landlord and in favor of tenant under a property condition/security
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
