Cases: Section 1717

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 G056144/G058796 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Mar. 24, 2021) (unpublished), was faced with consolidated appeals where a $795,728 fee award was trying to be sustained and where a $926,170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

Prevailing Party, Section 1717, Settlement: “Dismissal Pursuant To A Settlement Of The Case” Language In Civil Code Section 1717 Does Not Encompass Settlement With CCP § 664.6 Jurisdiction and Attorney’s Fees Clause Covering Post-Settlement Efforts

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717, Cases: Settlement

Appellant’s Construction Would Thwart Settlement Efforts.             Appellant in Wash v. Wash, Case No. F077486 (5th Dist. Mar. 11, 2021) (unpublished) earlier appealed an order enforcing a settlement agreement with a contractual fees clause, an appeal that he lost.  Respondent requested appellate fees of $18,216.98, with the trial judge awarding $9,321 against appellant.  Although the fee

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

Section 1717: Attorney Fees Of $340,865.22 Awarded To Prevailing Cross-Defendant Based On Fees Provision In Agreement With Handwritten Modifications And Executed By Only One Of The Two Married Plaintiffs

Cases: Section 1717

The Pre-Printed Attorney Fee Provision In The Parties’ Lease Option Agreement Was Facially Valid And Enforceable Despite Plaintiffs’ Assertions That The Contract As A Whole Was Not.             In Ramos v. Wallahan, Case No. A157085 (1st Dist., Div. 3 February 26, 2021) (unpublished), cross-complaining landlord defendant was awarded $340,865.22 in Civ. Code § 1717 attorney

Allocation, Construction, Section 1717: Contractor Defeating Worker’s Compensation Insurance Claims Not Entitled To Contractual Fees, Which Needed To Be Apportioned On Remand

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Construction, Cases: Section 1717

No Contractual Fee Provisions Covered The Worker’s Compensation Issues.             Although apportionment is sometimes a discretionary exercise, it can be mandatory where there are non-fee entitlement issues which are likely disparate in nature.              Fernandez v. Escutia, Case Nos. H046529/H047015 (6th Dist. Feb. 24, 2021) (unpublished) is a situation where a contractor won a construction

Costs, Deeds of Trust, Prevailing Party, Section 1717, Seriously: 4/3 DCA Affirms Mixed Results Fee Awards To One Of Two Plaintiffs Of $34,740 And A Combination Of $35,577 To Two Of Three Defendants

Cases: Costs, Cases: Deeds of Trust, Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717, Seriously

The Title Issue That Started It All Was Partly Corrected And Seller Resumed Payments Years Before, But The Parties Battled On All The Way To Trial – Incurring A Combined Total Of $202,299.50 In Fees, Plus Costs.             In our Mission Statement, we quote a statement made by Retired Justice Wallin in Deane Gardenhome

Section 1717: Nonsignatory Defendant Sued On Note Properly Awarded $92,622.50 In Attorney Fees For Prevailing Against Plaintiff’s Claims

Cases: Section 1717

Prevailing Nonsignatory Defendants, Who Are Sued On A Contract As If A Party To It, Are Entitled To Fees Where Plaintiff Would Be Entitled If Prevailing In Enforcing Contractual Obligation Against Defendant.             In Town & Country etc. v. King City etc., Case Nos. B296864/B303927 (2d Dist., Div. 5 January 29, 2021) (unpublished), two

Deeds Of Trust, Requests For Admission, Section 1717: Civil Code § 1717 And Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.420 Award Of $191,619.47 In Attorney Fees And $29,345.97 In Costs To Defendants Prevailing Against Negligence And Fraud Claims At Trial Affirmed

Cases: Deeds of Trust, Cases: Requests for Admission, Cases: Section 1717

Civil Code § 1717 Fees Are Awardable In An Action To Enforce Or, As In This Case, Avoid Enforcement Of A Contract, And Plaintiff Failed To Prove He Met Any Of The Four Exceptions To The Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.420 Mandated Fee Award For His Failures To Make Admissions.             In Yoon v.

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

Scroll to Top