Cases: Section 1717

Section 1717: Tenant Losing Post-Unlawful Detainer Proceeding Against Landlords Suffers Adverse Fee Award Based On Broad Contractual Fees Clause

Cases: Landlord/Tenant, Cases: Section 1717

  Unlawful Detainer Judgment Was Res Judicata, and Fees Clause Was Broad.      Howard v. Champion, Case No. B234337 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Aug. 15, 2012) (unpublished) is a situation where landlords won a prior unlawful detainer judgment for possession and back rent against tenant, winning a summary judgment where the U.D. judge indicated there […]

Prevailing Party/Section 1717: Defendants Winning Loan Litigation Based On Statute Of Limitations Entitled To Fee Recovery As Prevailing Parties

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717

  $25,675 Was Awarded in Favor of Winning Defendants.       Plaintiffs, suing on a loan agreement with a fees clause, lost on statute of limitations (time bar) grounds to defendants in Hale v. Adams, Case No. B234826 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Aug. 14, 2012) (unpublished). Defendants then moved for and recovered $25,675 in attorney’s fees

Choice of Law/Indemnity/Section 1717: Losing Indemnitee Bears Full Requested Attorney’s Fees Against It, As Non-Prevailing Party, Of $161,669.87 For Being Defeated In Indemnity Action

Cases: Choice of Law, Cases: Indemnity, Cases: Section 1717

  Indemnitee Drafted Pennsylvania Choice of Law Clause, Putative Indemnitor Conceded Fees Clause In Indemnity Agreement Was Reciprocal, And Apportionment Not Required Because Liability And Indemnity Issues Inextricably Intertwined.      You knew where this one was going when it opened “Appellant . . . was hoist by its own petard when the trial court enforced

Section 1717/Special Fee Shifting Statute: Losing Plaintiffs’ Efforts To Recoup Monies Under Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act Did Not Give Rise To Fee Exposure

Cases: Section 1717, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  None Under Either Section 1717 or the UFTA.      The Fourth District, Division 1 in Levine v. McAvoy, Case No. D058894 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Aug. 2, 2012) (unpublished) decided that fee exposure was correctly not visited upon losing plaintiffs seeking to recoup monies from third-party transferees under the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (UFTA).

Requests For Admissions/Section 1717/Specific Fee Shifting Statutes: Property Owner Obtaining Cancellation Of Grant Deed For Fraud Not Entitled to Attorney’s Fees Recovery

Cases: Requests for Admission, Cases: Section 1717, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  Three Grounds for Recovery Did Not Support Request.      Property owner in Marchi-Friel v. Rago, Case No. A130125 (1st Dist., Div. 4 May 31, 2012) (unpublished) did obtain cancellation of a fraudulent grant deed, with the trial court also cancelling related promissory notes out of an abundance of caution. She then sought recovery of

Prevailing Party/Section 1717: Successor Trust Deed Lender Entitled To Attorney’s Fees Recovery Against Extinguished Lienholder Based On “Practical Liability” Section 1717 Doctrine

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717

  Saucedo Case Found to Support Fee Recovery.      Saucedo v. Mercury Sav. & Loan Assn., 111 Cal.App.3d 309, 315 (1980) is an interesting section 1717 decision where plaintiffs (nonassuming grantees) of a property subject to a note/trust deed beat the lender under loan documents with a fees clause. Plaintiffs were allowed fee recovery because,

Section 1717: $142,000 Out Of Requested $316,335 In Fees Awarded To Party Achieving Litigation Objective, Although Only One-Third Of Requested Damages

Cases: Section 1717

  Discretionary Call on Prevailing Party Was Given Deference.      Wertheim, LLC v. Currency Corp., Case No. B218547 (2d Dist., Div. 1 May 22, 2012) (unpublished) was a loan dispute donnybrook with some wild assignment issues and the prevailing party basically winning the argument that lender charged more in interest and fees than was permitted

Deeds Of Trust/Fee Clause Interpretation/Section 1717: Prevailing Lender Either Did Make Sufficient Demand For Payment Of Fees/Costs Or Demand Requirement Excused

Cases: Deeds of Trust, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Section 1717

  $101,380 Fee Award Affirmed in Case Where $220,978.34 Monetary Judgment Was Entered Earlier.      Defendant borrowers lost a judicial foreclosure proceeding, an equitable claim that was bifurcated and heard first by the trial court, to the tune of $220,978.34, plus attorney’s fees and costs based on fee clauses in the operative loan documents. Later,

Reasonableness Of Fees/Section 1717: Fees Spent On Extraneous Matters Not Entitled To Compensation Where Separate Entities And Separate Case Involved

Cases: Reasonableness of Fees, Cases: Section 1717

  Case Is One Involving Fee Recovery By Public Agency.      Okay, so a public agency did prevail and recover fees in a dispute in Wilshire Ventures Corp. v. City of San Fernando Redevelopment Agency, Case Nos. B230916/B232924 (2d Dist., Div. 1 May 9, 2012) (unpublished). Public agency was entitled to fees under a written

Scroll to Top