Cases: Section 1717

Construction, Section 1717: Defendant Prevailing On Only One Payment Withholding Issue Not Entitled To Fee Recovery Under Prompt Payment Statutes And Plaintiff Only Entitled To Reasonable Fees Under Contractual Fees Clause

Cases: Construction, Cases: Section 1717

Plaintiff’s Request For Full Fees Ignores That Section 1717 Only Allow For Recovery Of Reasonable Fees.             Co-contributor Mike knew right away that McMahon Steel Co. v. Angeles Contractor, Inc., Case No. G054053 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Dec. 3, 2018) (unpublished) was written by Acting Presiding Justice Bedsworth. Here is how it opens: “The […]

Deeds Of Trust, Prevailing Party, Section 1717: Where Lender Did Get Ruling Saying Plaintiff Had To Repay Loan, That Was A Prevailing Party Determination

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

Section 1717 Governed In This One, Given Broad Fees Clause In Deed Of Trust.             In PNG Investments, Inc. v. RG Real Estate Investments, Case No. B280229 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Nov. 20, 2018) (unpublished), plaintiff/cross-defendant won a real estate loan dispute against defendant/cross-complainant. Later, the trial judge awarded plaintiff/cross-defendant contractual attorney’s fees under a

Section 1717: Lower Court Improperly Awarded Attorney’s Fees To Plaintiffs Under A Post-Dismissal Settlement Agreement Because Easement Dispute Was Contractual, Not Based On Tort Theories

Cases: Section 1717

Santisas Controlled The Result In This One.             In Cho v. Hamilton Court, LLC, Case No. B282399 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Nov. 13, 2018) (unpublished), parties reached a settlement agreement with a fees clause relating to any action or arbitration “to enforce the terms or conditions [of the easement agreement],” after dismissing a breach of

Common Fund, Homeowner Associations, Section 1717: Developers Properly Denied $1.950 Million In Attorney’s Fees Against HOA Under Either Civil Code Section 1717 Or The Common Fund/Substantial Benefit Doctrine

Cases: Common Fund, Cases: Homeowner Associations, Cases: Section 1717

HOA Would Not Have Been Entitled To Fees If It Had Won, So Developers Did Not Prevail, With Equitable Doctrines Not Supplying An Anchor For An Award.             Market Lofts Community Assn. v. 9th Street Market Lofts, LLC, Case Nos. B280446/B282412 (2d Dist., Div. 2 Nov. 13, 2018) (unpublished) involved a case where an HOA

Consumer Statutes, Landlord-Tenant, Section 1717: Tenant Prevailing On Common Law Residential Inhabitability Claim Limited To Contractually-Capped Fees Of $1,600

Cases: Consumer Statutes, Cases: Landlord/Tenant, Cases: Section 1717

Although More Fees Potentially Allowable Under Statutory Inhabitability Claim, Jury Did Not Base Its Verdict On The Statute Such That Contractually Capped Amount Was The Proper Award.             This next case involves an intersection between the parties’ contractually capped fee recovery under lease agreements and potentially more expansive damages under a statute allowing recovery for

Prevailing Party, Probate, Section 1717: 1/1 DCA Affirms “No Prevailing Party” Determination In Hotly Contested Probate Promissory Note Dispute Between Two Siblings

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Probate, Cases: Section 1717

Although Trial Court Lacked Jurisdiction Over The Dispute In California, Fee Denials On Dueling Motions Was Justified Because Siblings Had To Await Determination In Texas Action.             In Savage v. Savage, Case No. A150984 (1st Dist., Div. 1 Oct. 15, 2018) (unpublished) [parenthetically, maybe a good case name for court disputes – no?], two siblings

Section 1717: Attorney’s Fees Award Under Asset Purchase Agreement Fees Clause Reversed As To Certain Losing Non-shareholder Plaintiffs Because They Could Not Sue Derivatively

Cases: Section 1717

Lack Of Derivative Standing Required Reversal Of Fee Award Obtained By Some Defendants Against Losing Non-shareholder Plaintiffs.             In Jarrett v. Diversis Management LLC, Case Nos. B277855/B279242 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Oct. 10, 2018) (unpublished), plaintiffs filed a derivative suit against a number of defendants, losing on a summary judgment motion which was affirmed on

Prevailing Party, Section 1717: Trial Court Properly Denied Section 1717 Fees To Plaintiff Winning $338,750 And To Cross-Complainant Winning $32,960

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717

Neither Side Obtained Complete Success, With Both Suffering Significant Defeats In The Overall Litigation.             Both sides in 12400 Stowe Drive, LP v. Cycle Express, LLC, Case No. D069738 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Sept. 28, 2018) (unpublished) were unhappy that the trial judge found neither to be the “prevailing party” based on a lease fees

Prevailing Party, Section 1717: Plaintiff’s Nonsignatory Successor In Interest Liable For Atty’s Fees After Losing Primary Litigation Objectives In Judicial Foreclosure Action And In Cross-Complaint Asking For Declaration No Further Repayment Of Loan

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717

Although Parties Settled, The Settlement Agreement Preserved The Prevailing Party’s Ability To Recoup Fees.             Plaintiff’s successor under certain loan documents brought a judicial foreclosure action against defendant borrower, who brought a declaratory relief cross-complaint claiming repayments all had been timely made. During the course of the litigation, a bank produced information showing that the

Partition, Prevailing Party, Section 1717: $99,761.46 Litigant Prevailing In Undeveloped Land Partition By Sale Dispute Was Entitled To Recovery

Cases: Partition, Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717

Litigant Awarded Fees Did Prevail Under CCP §§ 874.010/874.040 And Civil Code Section 1717.             In Shadab v. Goldberg, Case No. B277925 (2d Dist., Div. 6 Aug. 22, 2018) (unpublished), one side won a partition by sale of undeveloped land, with the trial court eventually awarding attorney’s fees of $99,761.46 after finding the fee claimant

Scroll to Top