Borrower Did Not Invoke Directly The Terms of Agreements With Fee Clauses. In Thomas v. Seterus, Inc., Case No. A155170 (1st Dist., Div. 2 July 2, 2019) (unpublished), lenders moved for post-trial attorney’s fees based on note and trust deed fees clauses against a borrower bringing claims based on the California Homeowners Bill of
One Litigant Cannot Partially Prevail At Trial, And Another On Appeal, For Purposes Of Ultimate Prevailing Party Determination Under Section 1717. The Sixth District in Gambord v. Galli Produce Co., Case No. H043872 (6th Dist. June 28, 2019) (unpublished) faced an interesting issue based on a contractual fees clause under Civil Code section 1717:
Residential Security Deposit Scheme Did Not Preempt Tort Fee Award; But Landlord Correctly Reduced Landlord’s Fee Request Of $659,367.56 For Various Reasons Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Weingart, sitting by assignment on the 2/1 DCA, has penned a nice decision in Sweeney v. Scully, Case No. B284915 (2d Dist., Div. 1 June 27,
Majority And Dissenting Justice Disagreed On The Meaning Of A $500 Fee Cap Provision When Another Provision Discussed Additional Fees Being Within Play. We know from 511 S. Park View, Inc. v. Tsantis, 240 Cal.App.4th 44, 48 (2015) [discussed in our October 10, 2015 post] that courts will honor a contractual “cap” of fees
However, Appellate Court Reversal Of Guaranty Rescission Denial Did Trigger Fee Recovery Under Broad Bilateral Fees Clause. If readers follow us over the years (or if you are new to us, welcome), the actual wording of a contractual attorney’s fees clause can be critical in terms of whether it allows fee entitlement. The disparate
Equitable Claims Can Be “On The Contract,” Parties Losing On Their Complaint And Cross-Complaint Meant That Neither Side Prevailed; One Litigant Beat 998 Offer Based On Non-Monetary Value And The Fact That The Composite Joint Nature Of Offer Had To Be Considered, But Matter Had To Be Remanded For Prevailing Party Determination Based On An
However, Plaintiffs/Appellants And Their Appellate Counsel Sanctioned $44,654.64 For Frivolous Appeal. In J.B.B. Investment Partners Ltd. v. Fair, Case Nos. A152877/A153698 (1st Dist., Div. 2 June 4, 2019) (unpublished), plaintiffs prevailed on a breach of contract count through a summary adjudication motion based on defendants’ breach of a settlement agreement and a lot of
Section 218.5(a)’s Policy Prevailed Over Section 1717 In This Instance. Dane-Elec Corp. v. Bodokh, Case No. G055312 (4th Dist., Div. 3 May 24, 2019) (partially published; fee discussion published) involved the collision between two fee entitlement provisions—Labor Code section 218.5(a) and Civil Code section 1717. Labor Code section 218.5(a) is a unilateral-fee shifting
Probate Code Section 15642(d) Was Other Fee Entitlement Basis, But Rejected Below. In Meyers v. Meyers, Case No. A154912 (1st Dist., Div. 5 May 23, 2019) (unpublished), two sisters—one of which was trustee and other of which a beneficiary along with the trustee sister—got entangled in a battle when trustee sold a property to
Appeal Of Prior Merits Addition Of New Judgment Debtor Order Did Not Divest Trial Court Of Jurisdiction To Rule On Fee Motion. In SMA Liquidating Corp. v. Leech Tishman Fuscaldo & Lampl, LLP, Case No. B287960 (2d Dist., Div. 7 May 13, 2019) (unpublished), the trial judge allowed a second request for consideration of
