Cases: Section 1717

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      That is what happened in Sznyter v. Spun.com, Inc., Case No. D061832 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Apr. 25, 2014) (unpublished).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      In Anelle v. Tran, Case No. G048072 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Apr. 15, 2014) (unpublished), realtor/broker defendants defensed plaintiffs/sellers’ tort claims from a failed real estate transaction and also recovered listing compensation on a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      Whyaduck Productions, Inc. v. Block, Case No. B245051 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Apr. 9, 2014) (unpublished) is a case which somewhat flummoxed the appellate court given a sparse record and the position of the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

Prevailing Party/Section 1717: Plaintiff Achieving Objective In Defeating Bail Bond Annual Renewal Fee Was Not Properly Assessed With Fees As “Non-Prevailing Party”

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717

  Plaintiff Did Achieve What He Wanted, So Reversal of Fortunes—He Prevailed!      The appellate court in Zock v. Esparza, Case No. D062784 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Mar. 13, 2014) (unpublished) reversed as a matter of law a lower court’s grant of fees against a plaintiff who actually achieved his main litigation results. Basically, plaintiff

Prevailing Party/Section 1717: Fee Claimant Under Contractual Deed Of Trust Clauses Still Must Show It Is A Prevailing Party Under Civil Code Section 1717

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717

  “Losing Party” Not Entitled to Fee Under Most Contractual Fee Clauses, Muses Appellate Court.      The fee claimant in Vail Lake Rancho California, LLC v. Abreu, Case No. D061892 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Mar. 7, 2014) (unpublished) somewhat flummoxed the appellate court on review in challenging a denial of fee recovery under two contractual

Section 1717/Settlement: Couple Releasing Former Law Firm In Settlement Agreement Hit With Fee Recovery Of $230,803 In Favor Of Former Law Firm

Cases: Section 1717, Cases: Settlement

  Contractual Clauses in Retainer and Settlement Agreements Conferred Fee Entitlement Upon Former Law Firm.      This next case demonstrates a couple of things—first, be careful how you draft settlement releases (because they may release inadvertent parties and give rise to fee recovery), and second, subjective intent evidence is generally not probative in parol evidence

Scroll to Top