Cases: Section 1717

Indemnity, Prevailing Party, Section 1717: Trial Court Erred In Denying Contractual Fees To Owner And General Contractor’s Surety Such That A Remand Was Required—There Was A Fees Clause, Not Just An Indemnity Provision

Cases: Indemnity, Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717

However, Appellate Court Acknowledged That Results Were Decidedly Mixed, But Any Prevailing Party Determination Was To Be Made By Lower Court             Driving multiple trips to the appellate court were the parties’ claims for attorney’s fees, something we have seen often and one of the things which inspired this blog.             In John Russo Industrial […]

Section 1717: Rescission Of A Retail Installment Auto Sales Contract Did Trigger Appellate Fee Recovery Under Civil Code Section 1717 For Earlier Appeal Win By Plaintiff

Cases: Section 1717

Appellate Court Did Not Have To Address Fee Entitlement Under The Automobile Sales Finance Act.            This next case demonstrates how appellate courts do not have to address all fee entitlement issues advanced by a prevailing party if one fee entitlement basis can support fee recovery.             Plaintiff won an earlier appeal by which the superior

Prevailing Party, Section 1717: In UCC Case, Plaintiff Only Winning Installation Cost Recovery Rather Than Defective System Recovery Against Contractual Recovery Properly Denied Attorney’s Fees Recovery

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717

Defendant Gravitated More On The “Winning Side,” Although Mixed Bag For Everyone.            This next case takes us back to law school for co-contributor Mike. He had a great Uniform Commercial Code professor in law school (E. Hunter Taylor, who is a professor emeritus at Rutgers-Camden Law School but is still practicing law in New Jersey),

Section 1717: Nominal Defendant Corporation Improperly Assessed With Substantial Attorney’s Fees And Costs In Meritless Derivative Action

Cases: Section 1717

4/3 DCA Amended Judgment To Reflect Unsuccessful Shareholder Liable For Fees And Costs Under Contractual Fees Clause; Corporation Dodged $1,357,410 Fee Award And $34,358.90 In Costs.             Here is another case where there was a complete change in fortune on appeal for a corporation sued as a nominal defendant in a derivative action.             In

Construction, Prevailing Party, Section 1717: 4/1 DCA Affirms That Subcontractor Was Not Prevailing Party Because Its Post-Litigation Deposit Near The End Of The Litigation Was Not A Proper Tender Under Civil Code Section 1717(b)(2)

Cases: Construction, Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717

Very Elaborate Discussion Of “Tender” Under Section 1717(b)(2), Which Appellant Did Not Meet.             D.R. Horton Los Angeles Holding Co., Inc. v. Milgard Mfg. Co., Inc., Case No. D074889 (4th Dist., Div. 1 March 29, 2019) (unpublished) is an interesting case which interpreted the nature of Civil Code section 1717(b)(2). That provision says that where

Allocation, Section 1717, Reasonableness Of Fees: 4/3 DCA Affirms Contractual Fee Award To Prevailing Asserted Alter Ego Defendants To The Tune Of $203,940

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees, Cases: Section 1717

No Apportionment Required Because Alter Ego Claims Were Involved On Both Causes Of Action; Assertion That Hourly Rates Should Be Lower Did Not Rebut Fee Claimant’s Attorney’s Declaration.             In Alvarado v. Freedman, Case No. G055918 (4th Dist., Div. 3 March 28, 2019) (unpublished), plaintiff sued defendants for loan repayment, based on a loan agreement

Costs, Fee Clause Interpretation, Homeowner Associations, Section 1717: Trial Court Properly Denied Fee Recovery To Prevailing Defendants Under Davis-Stirling Act Or Civil Code Section 1717 And Properly Struck The Costs Memorandum

Cases: Costs, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Homeowner Associations, Cases: Section 1717

Action Was Based On Tort, Not CC&Rs; Fee Clause Did Not Reach Tort Claims Under Section 1717; And Defendants Failed To Apportion Costs As Between Themselves.             In the fee area, you must have a solid fee entitlement basis and you usually have to apportion costs where there are several prevailing defendants rather than claim

Section 1717: Prevailing Defendant, Not A Party To A Fees Clause But Beating Alter Ego Allegations, Not Entitled To Fee Recovery Because He Was Sued For Fraud

Cases: Section 1717

Section 1717 Allows For Recovery “On A Contract,” Not For Fraud.             An individual defendant in High Sierra Properties, Inc. v. Mitchell, Case No. B280201 (2d Dist., Div. 7 March 25, 2019) (unpublished) was feeling pretty good after winning a nonsuit in which he was sued for fraud, both individually and as an alter ego

Fee Clause Interpretation, Section 1717: $40,642 Contractual Fee Recovery Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Section 1717

Storage Facilities Had A Clear Fee Entitlement Provision, With Another Provision Not Capping Them At All—With Reasonable Fees Being The Only Limitation.             In Enjati v. Big Bear Moving, Inc., Case No. E068332 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Mar. 13, 2019) (unpublished), defendants were awarded contractual attorney’s fees after prevailing at trial on a storage facility

Homeowner Associations, Section 1717, Special Fee Shifting Statutes: Homeowner Plaintiffs In A Common Interest Development Dispute Over Assessment Liens Must Pay Prevailing Party Defendants $125,796.50 In Attorney Fees

Cases: Homeowner Associations, Cases: Section 1717, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Summary Judgment Hinged On Voting Rights Language In The Covenants Of The Development             The Davis-Stirling Act (Civ. Code section 4000 et seq.) governs the creation and operation of common interest developments, and requires such developments to be managed by a homeowners association, which homeowners are generally mandated to join.             In Bertoli v.

Scroll to Top