Cases: Receivers

Prevailing Party, Receivers, Special Fee Shifting Statutes: Sisters Escaping Liability To County/Receiver In State Housing Law Abatement Receivership Were Entitled To Fees Under Health & Safety Code Section 17980.7(c)(11)—They Were Prevailing Parties

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Receivers, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

More Generalized H&S Code Section 17984 Did Not Trump More Specific, Recently Enacted Statute, With Sisters Being The Parties Obtaining Their Specific Litigation Objectives Although The County Did Somewhat Prevail On More Tangential Issues. In County of Del Norte v. Britt, Case No. A173145 (1st Dist., Div. 3 June 11, 2026) (partially published; fee discussion […]

Prevailing Party, Receivers, Special Fee Shifting Statutes: City Of Norco v. Mugar Is Now A Published Decision.

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Receivers, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Trial Court’s Determination That Plaintiff City Was The Prevailing Party Was Proper Under Catalyst Theory, City’s Arrangement With Outside Counsel Did Not Violate Defendant’s Due Process Rights, And Fee Award Of $60,798.94 To City Was Not Meant To Penalize Defendant For Defending Property Rights.             We discussed City of Norco v. Mugar, Case No. E072858

Prevailing Party, Receivers, Special Fee Shifting Statutes: $60,798.94 Awarded To Prevailing City In Abatement Nuisance Action Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Receivers, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

City’s Arrangement With Outside Counsel Did Not Violate Defendant Property Owner’s Due Process Rights, Fee Award Was Not Meant To Penalize Defendant For Defending Property Rights, And Trial Court Properly Determined City The Prevailing Party Under Catalyst Theory.             Plaintiff City and defendant property owner had a long history of conflict regarding substandard conditions on

Receivers, Special Fee Shifting Statutes: County’s Enforcement Fees And Costs In Obtaining Receivership Appointment And Remediating Hazardous Property Conditions Are Not Entitled To Super-Priority Status Along With Receivership Expenses

Cases: Receivers, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Claims Of Competing Lienholders Had To Be Considered With Respect To Division Of Property Sale Proceeds.             In County of Sonoma v. U.S. Bank N.A., Case Nos. A155837/A157245 (1st Dist., Div. 1 Oct. 8, 2020) (published), the appellate court affirmed a lower court’s order conferring super-priority status to property sale proceeds on a receiver’s financial

Appealability, Receivers: $92,952 In Receivership Fees Affirmed In Judgment In Favor Of Landlord Elks Building Association Of Santa Ana And Against Tenant JK Properties

Cases: Appealability, Cases: Receivers

Appealing Both Merits And Fee Judgments Was Properly Done Here; Special Benefit Doctrine Was Not Proven By Tenant.             In Elks Building Association of Santa Ana v. J.K. Properties, Inc., Case No. G056187 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Sept. 10, 2019) (unpublished), tenant JK Properties assumed a lease to the Saddleback Inn in Santa Ana, whose

Appealability, Receivers, Special Fee Shifting Statutes: Grant Of Attorney’s Fees And Expenses To City Of Indio And Against Property Lender/Receivership Estate In Public Abatement Action Reversed As A Matter Of Law

Cases: Appealability, Cases: Receivers, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Two Health And Safety Code Fee Shifting Statutes And Indio Municipal Fee Shifting Provision Did Not Provide Bases For Fees/Expenses Against Lender/Receiver.             In Kaura v. Stabilis Fund III, LLC/City of Indio (as intervenor), Case No. E065751 (4th Dist., Div. 2 June 13, 2018) (partially published; appealability discussion not published), lender with a deed of

Receivers: Receiver Did Not Have To File Costs Memorandum In Order To Recoup His Retained, Approved Attorney’s Fees For Successfully Defending Against Prior Appeal By Other Side

Cases: Receivers

  Fees Governed Instead By CRC 3.1185, Not Rule 8.278(c)(1).     In Marriage of Hogan, Case No. B265141 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Oct. 24, 2016) (unpublished), a couple in a marital dissolution action appealed a trial court’s award of appellate attorney’s fees to an appointed receiver for successfully defending a prior appeal involving the receivership. 

Private Attorney General/Receivers: $250,000 In Fee Recovery To CEQA Petitioners Under City of San Diego Settlement Agreement And Receivers Fees Sustained With No Need To Submit Costs Memorandum

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5), Cases: Receivers

  Coastal Environmental Rights Foundation, Inc. v. City of San Diego, Case Nos. D060230 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Oct. 16, 2014) (unpublished)      Here, a CEQA petitioner finally forged a settlement with the City of San Diego over issuing a permit for the 2010 La Jolla Cove Fireworks Show without performing an environmental review. Under

Receivers: Attorneys Properly Assessed With 15% Surcharge For Failing To Ensure That Receiver Made Monthly Reports

Cases: Receivers

15% Reduction Justified Because Monthly Receiver Reports Might Have Resulted in Possible Fee Savings, Says Second District, Division 7      Here is an interesting one for all of you attorneys representing receivers. The lesson to be learned is direct and simple: make sure they discharge basic fiduciary responsibilities of filing monthly reports, or face possible

Scroll to Top