Cases: Section 1717

Prevailing Party/Section 1717: Respondent Winning “Broom Clean” Property Vacation Dispute Garners Fee Award As Prevailing Party

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717

  Respondent Satisfied Pragmatic Test for Prevailing under 1717.      In Adelman v. Adelman, Case No. B248303 (2d Dist., Div. 4 May 13, 2014) (unpublished), respondent was awarded fees after successfully litigating the issue of whether appellant vacated a property and left it in “broom clean” condition. Respondent proved that she had to incur clean-up […]

Arbitration Under MFAA/Section 1717: $56,350 Fee Recovery Based Under MFAA And Section 1717 Affirmed In Favor Of Attorney Successfully Suing To Collect Receivable

Cases: Arbitration, Cases: Section 1717

  Trope Prohibition Not in Play Because Suing Attorneys Used Independent Contractors, Not Associates, to Prosecute Case.      The opinion in Rothman v. Deshay, Case No. B245075 (2d Dist., Div. 4 May 13, 2014) (unpublished) gives guidance on how attorneys prosecuting or defending themselves in litigation can use other attorneys and avoid the Trope prohibition

Lodestar/Probate/Section 1717/Substantiation Of Fees: Court Affirms Fee Award On Fiduciary Duty Claims As Arising On Contract, Denies Fee Request Against Trustee Whose Opposition Was Not Frivolous, And Remands Lodestar Calculation

Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Probate, Cases: Section 1717, Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees

Looks Like Decades Trust Disputes Are Drawing To An End.      Holt v. Denholm, Case Nos. G045496 and G046293 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Apr. 28, 2014) (unpublished)—both authored by Presiding Justice O’Leary–are two appeals involving cross-over probate and Civil Code section 1717 issues in a long-running battle between different sides of a family trust—pitting a

Fee Clause Interpretation/Section 1717: Party Under Merger Agreement Was Not Entitled To Fees Against Losing Party Under Separate Agreement (Not The Merger Agreement) With No Fees Clause Or Third Party Beneficiary Status

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Section 1717

  Agreements Were Unambiguous, Not Allowing For Fee Recovery.      Where contracts with no extrinsic conflicts are involved, appellate courts will construe agreements by their terms—no fees clause, no fee recovery..      That is what happened in Sznyter v. Spun.com, Inc., Case No. D061832 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Apr. 25, 2014) (unpublished).      The basics

Allocation/Section 1717/Substantiating Reasonableness Of Fees: Realtor/Broker Defensing Sellers’ Tort Claims And Winning Broker Compensation Cross-Claim Gets Contractual Fees Against Real Estate Plaintiffs/Sellers

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

  Not Every Attorney Must Attest to Substantiation of Hours in Fee Petition.      In Anelle v. Tran, Case No. G048072 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Apr. 15, 2014) (unpublished), realtor/broker defendants defensed plaintiffs/sellers’ tort claims from a failed real estate transaction and also recovered listing compensation on a cross-claim where the listing agreement did contain

Allocation/Estoppel/Fee Clause Interpretation/Section 1717/Reasonableness Of Fees: Real Estate Buyer’s Tort Claims Did Not Give Rise To Fee Exposure Under Narrowly-Worded Fees Clause

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Estoppel, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees, Cases: Section 1717

  However, Sellers Were Liable To Third-Party For Losing Their Contractual/Indemnity Claims, Which Were Intertwined And Needed No Apportionment.      Real estate buyer lost tort/statutorily-based nondisclosure claims to the sellers in a dispute where a purchase agreement had a fees clause mandating fees in an action brought “with respect to the subject matter of enforcement

Prevailing Party/Section 1717: Guarantor Of Arbitration Award Was Properly Hit With $85,500 In Attorney’s Fees

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717

  Arbitration Award Winner Did Prevail In Subsequent Action, Despite Uncertainty As to Whether Fees Were Damages or Post-trial Costs.      Whyaduck Productions, Inc. v. Block, Case No. B245051 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Apr. 9, 2014) (unpublished) is a case which somewhat flummoxed the appellate court given a sparse record and the position of the

Prevailing Party/Section 998/Section 1717: Plaintiffs In Sewer Easement Dispute With Nearby Defendants Not Entitled To Fees, While Defendants Properly Awarded $478,022 In Fees Under CCP § 998

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717, Cases: Section 998

  Result Was “Mixed” For Plaintiffs, While Plaintiffs Did Not Eclipse Defense 998 Offer.      The result in Smith v. Esmailzadeh, Case No. B239828 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Mar. 19, 2014) (unpublished) illustrates well our Mission Statement that "[a]ll too often attorney fees become the tail that wags the dog in litigation."  Deane Gardenhome Assn.

Probate/Prevailing Party/Section 1717/Settlement: Voluntary Dismissal Of Probate Petition To Confirm Settlement Properly Supported Denial Of Attorney’s Fees To Opposing Parties

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

  Santisas Drove the Result in this One.      In Berry v. Berry, Case No. D062914 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Mar. 18, 2014) (unpublished), one co-trustee/aligned other parties were not happy when a probate court denied their request for attorney’s fees under a settlement agreement fees clause after another co-trustee (a brother, of course) voluntarily

Scroll to Top