Cases: Section 1717

Section 1717: Party Taking Title Pursuant To Quiet Title Judgment, Not Documents With Fee Clauses, Properly Denied Recovery Of 1717 Fees

Cases: Section 1717

  Party Requesting Fees Would Not Have Faced Exposure to Successor Lender Under Document Fee Clauses.      In the Civil Code section 1717 context, especially involving non-signatories, alter egos, successor or joint venturers, a crucial inquiry for recovery is whether this class of litigants would have faced fee exposure under a fees clause to the […]

Cases Under Review/Prevailing Party/Section 1717: Kandy Kiss Case Under Review

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717

  Briefing Looks Completed; Issue Is Whether Procedural Victory Based on Federal Exclusive Jurisdiction Entitles Litigant to Prevailing Party Status Under Civil Code Section 1717.      On both September 22, 2012 and December 27, 2012, we posted on Kandy Kiss of California, Inc. v. Tex-Ellent, Inc., a Second District decision affirming an award of attorney’s

Section 1717/Settlement: Lower Court Erred In Denying Contractual Fees To Prevailing Party Upon Written Reply Memorandum Request Before Party Had Chance To Properly File Motion For Fees

Cases: Section 1717, Cases: Settlement

  Denial Order Changed to Provide Prevailing Party Was Entitled to Fees Upon Subsequent Motion.      In Salazar v. Salazar, Case No. D061716 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Nov. 4, 2013) (unpublished), a court enforced a settlement agreement between brothers, with the agreement and a promissory note containing fees clauses in the event of a default.

Section 1717: Action To Avoid Enforcement Of A Contract Is “On The Contract” For Purposes Of Civil Code Section 1717 Fee Recovery

Cases: Section 1717

  Party’s Effort To Invalidate Agreements With Fee Clause Did the Trick For Fee Entitlement.      In Eden Township Healthcare Dist. v. Eden Medical Center, Case No. A136695 (1st Dist.,, Div. 1 Oct. 9, 2013) (published), cross-defendant appealed a lower court’s decision denying it attorney’s fees under Civil Code section 1717 after cross-complainant lost a

Allocation/Section 1717: Fee Clause In Forbearance Agreement Triggered To Allow Fee Recovery For Non-Contract Claim When Defense Based On Agreement Was In Play

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Section 1717

  $181,933 “Generous” Fee Award Not Out of Bounds.      LA Open Door Presbyterian Church v. Evangelical Christian Credit Union, Case No. B246853 (2d Dist., Div. 2 Oct. 4, 2013) (unpublished) is a situation where a defendant was voluntarily dismissed from a suit involving a contract (a written forbearance agreement with a fees clause). Although

Section 998/Section 1717: Where Germane Contract Lacked Fees Clause And 998 Offer Only Allowed Fees “If Appropriate,” Plaintiff Accepting 998 Offer Properly Denied Fees

Cases: Section 1717, Cases: Section 998

  998 Accepted Offer Was $40,000, Chagrined Plaintiff Denied Requested $225,750 In Fees.      Care of Justice Yegan and his colleagues in the Second District, Division 6, we have an interesting CCP § 998/Civil Code § 1717 decision in The DuPuis Group v. Atticus Information Systems, Inc., Case No. B242722 (2d Dist., Div. 6 Sept.

Allocation/Section 1717: Plaintiff’s Failure To Prevail Upon Successor Liability Theory Justified Attorney’s Fees Award To Claimed Successor

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Section 1717

  Fee Clauses Not Broad Enough to Support Tort Claim Wins, So Case Remanded to Fix Fees And Determine If Any Apportionment Necessary.      Brown Bark III, L.P. v. Haver, Case No. G047198 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Aug. 26, 2013) (unpublished) involved a defendant alleged to be the continuation of a defunct defendant signatory to

Equity/Fee Clause Interpretation/Section 1717: Prevailing Plaintiffs In LLC Dissolution Dispute Entitled To Fee Recovery Under Broadly Worded LLC Operating Agreement Fee Clause

Cases: Equity, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Section 1717

  Pre-Appraisal Participation in Litigating Issues Meant Corp. Code Section 17351(b) Did Not Trump Broadly Worded Fees Clause.      Kashian v. Simonian, Case No. F064325 (5th Dist. Aug. 28, 2013) (unpublished) was a business litigation war between two founding member sides of an LLC. Plaintiffs filed for fiduciary duty breach, declaratory relief, and LLC judicial

Scroll to Top