Cases: Section 1717

Probate, Section 1717: Attorney’s Fee Award Of $172,885 Affirmed Against Attorney/Law Firm Who Assisted Free-Lance Paralegal In Converting, To Free-Lance Paralegal’s Benefit, The Inheritance Of A Vulnerable, Impoverished, Paraplegic Beneficiary

Cases: Probate, Cases: Section 1717

The Trial Court Properly Awarded The Fees Pursuant to Civil Code Section 1717 Based On Provisions In The Escrow Agreement Drafted By Attorney/Law Firm Even Though That Agreement Was Determined By The Trial Court To Be Invalid.             The 2/8 DCA described this next case as being “prompted by a sordid chain of events,” […]

Deadlines, Retainer Agreements, Section 1717: 4/1 DCA Affirms $108,848.50 Attorney Fees Award To Prevailing Plaintiff Attorney For Work In Seeking Unpaid Fees And In Defending Against Former Client’s Cross-Complaint

Cases: Deadlines, Cases: Retainer Agreements, Cases: Section 1717

Balance Of Unpaid Fees And Costs Were $31,147.17 When Former Client Stopped Making Agreed-Upon Monthly Installment Payments Of $200.             In Delisi v. Wagner, Case Nos. D074728 and D075506 (4th Dist., Div. 1 January 27, 2020) (unpublished), an attorney sued his former client for unpaid fees and costs when Former Client stopped making monthly

Section 1717: Client’s Suit Against Disbarred Attorney’s Law Partner Was On The Contract Under Civil Code Section 1717

Cases: Section 1717

Trial Judge’s Denial Of Fees Was Error, But He Protectively Decided Only 10% Of Winner’s Claimed Fees Were Reasonable—With The Appellate Court Modifying The Judgment To Award This Amount!             This next one is interesting to show how trial judges can “protectively” express what attorney’s fees should be even though denying the request.  By doing

Section 1717, Settlement: Settlement Agreement Silent As To Allocation Of Attorney’s Fees/Costs Did Not Bar Section 1717 Fee Recovery By Prevailing Alter Ego Defendant

Cases: Section 1717, Cases: Settlement

$15,806.50 Fee Recovery Affirmed, Plus Fees/Costs On Appeal.             The next case shows how one needs to make fees/costs recovery explicit under a settlement agreement; if not, a later prevailing party not involved may get attorney’s fees and costs.            In J Sylvester Construction, Inc. v. Standeford, Case No. G057337 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Jan.

Arbitration, Prevailing Party, Section 1717: Trial Court Properly Found That Respondent Did Not Prevail For Fee Recovery Even Though She Did Obtain A Ruling Denying A Petition To Confirm The Arbitration Award And Did Obtain A Vacatur Ruling

Cases: Arbitration, Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717

The Lower Court’s Discretionary Determination That No One Prevailed Was Affirmed On Appeal.             In Goraya v. Stephens, Case No. F078335 (5th Dist. Jan. 3, 2020) (unpublished), property seller and property buyer submitted to arbitration and settled, with the listing agent joined as a party in the arbitration at his own request, eventually obtaining an

Deed Of Trust, POOF!, Prevailing Party, Section 1717: $427,951.93 Fee Award Based On Deed Of Trust Fee Provision Went POOF! Because Nonjudicial Foreclosure Purchaser Relied On Trustee’s Deed Upon Sale Having No Fees Clause

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

Purchaser’s Action Against Tax Authorities Did Not Really Focus On Deed Of Trust With Fees Clause.             CP III Rincon Towers, Inc. v. Assessment Appeals Bd. of the City and County of San Francisco (Rincon EF Realty LLC), Case No. A155714 (1st Dist., Div. 4 Dec. 17, 2019) (unpublished) shows that Civil Code section 1717”s

Fee Clause Interpretation, Section 1717: Plaintiff Nonparty Manager To An LLC Operating Agreement Not Subject To Attorney’s Fees When Losing Tort Claims Against An LLC Member

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Section 1717

Even though Plaintiff Was A Suspended Entity, Retroactive Revival Preserved Ability To Oppose Fees Motion, Which Could Still Not Be Granted If No Fee Entitlement.            In 9450 Topanga Properties, LLC v. Alpine Consultants, LLC, Case No. B293178 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Dec. 23, 2019) (unpublished), plaintiff manager, not a party to an LLC Operating

Homeowner Associations, Section 1717: $220,000 Fee Award To HOA Under CC&Rs Fees Clause Was Proper

Cases: Homeowner Associations, Cases: Section 1717

Plaintiff’s Unsuccessful Action Was Founded On CC&Rs Rights, Not Just Solely Sounding In Tort; HOA; Directors Had Sought $322,840 In Fees.             HOA and HOA directors were awarded $220,000 in attorney’s fees against an unsuccessful plaintiff bringing a suit to challenge HOA’s policies and CC&Rs about parking and the permitting process, as well as enforcement

Fee Clause Interpretation, Section 1717: Nonsignatory Prevailing Parties, Alleged To Be Alter Egos, Were Entitled To Attorney’s Fees Under Contractual Fees Clause When They Beat The Alter Ego Allegations

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Section 1717

Reynolds Was Controlling, Not Blickman Turkus.             What happened in Kaddu, Inc. v. Gauze, Case No. H045090 (6th Dist. Nov. 27, 2019) (unpublished) is that a cross-complainant filed a contractually-based cross-complaint against nonsignatory cross-defendants where they were alleged to be alter egos of the primary cross-defendant.  Cross-complainant sought attorney’s fees, in addition to damages, based

Fee Clause Interpretation, Section 1717: Collections Fees/Costs Provision In A Preprinted Form Which Was Incorporated In The Parties’ Bargain Provided Fee Entitlement

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Section 1717

Fees Are Costs, And Do Not Have To Be Pled/Proven Unless In A Third Party Tort or Brandt Situation.             Ya know, fee entitlement under a contractual fees clause can be based on very simple language set forth in a preprinted form.  In Ozuna Electric Co., Inc. v. Integrated Process Control Engineering, Inc., Case No.

Scroll to Top