Cases: Section 1717

Section 1717: Borrower Prevailing On Demurrer Sustained Without Leave Is Prevailing Party Despite Lender’s After-the-Fact With Prejudice Dismissal In The Wake Of A Fee Motion

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717

  Case Proceeded to a Determinative Stage, So Fees Were Recoverable In Order to Prevent Procedural Gamesmanship.      The problem here was that the demurrer without leave ruling was a “determinative adjudication” that could not be undone by a dismissal, whether with or without prejudice. (Goldtree v. Spreckels, 135 Cal. 666, 672-673 (1902); Wells v. […]

Section 1717: No Bank Exposure For Alter Ego Fee Recovery Where Judgment On Debt Obtained Years Earlier Such That Documents With Fee Clauses Were No More

Cases: Section 1717

  Procedural Posture of Prior and Later Proceedings Was Determinative.      One of the leading attorney’s fees cases in California under Civil Code section 1717 is Reynolds Metals Co. v. Alperson, 25 Cal.3d 124, 129 (1979), where the California Supreme Court found that two individual shareholders claimed to be the alter egos of a bankrupt

Section 1717/Section 998: “Pocketbook” Considerations Should Not Factor Into Civil Code Section 1717 Contractual Fee Award

Cases: Section 1717, Cases: Section 998

  Failure to Award 998 Offer Costs Reversed, Including Refusal to Compensate For Excluded Expert Testimony Whose Admissibility Was Uncertain, But Maybe Necessary. Above:  Pocketbook considerations.  1942.  Arthur S. Siegel, photographer.  Library of Congress.      Here is an interesting one that we predict will engender some interesting discussion on at least the main published Civil

Assignment/Section 1711/Probate: Settlement Agreement Did Justify Attorney’s Fees Award Of $51,236.21 Against Petitioners, But Not Against A Nonsignatory

Cases: Assignment, Cases: Probate, Cases: Section 1717, Cases: Settlement

  Although Controlling the Litigation, Nonsignatory Had No Rights Assigned Under The Fees-Clause Bearing Settlement Agreement.      Estate of Bennett, Case Nos. G043050 et al. (4th Dist., Div. 3 Mar. 8, 2011) (unpublished), although a probate action, actually is a Civil Code section 1717 fees clause case, with the fee award affirmed by a 3-0

Section 1717: Note Co-Maker Loss On Contractual/Subrogation Claims Gave Rise To Fee Exposure To Other Winning Co-Maker

Cases: Section 1717

  Mutuality Was There, Appellate Panel Rules.      Note co-maker sued another note co-maker regarding repayment of a $500,000 loan to Vineyard Bank. Plaintiff lost this suit to one of the non-settling co-makers, with loser basically arguing that the attorney’s fees clause in the note only really applied to a conventional lender versus note maker

Prevailing Party/Section 1717: Tenant Bank’s Summary Judgment Win In Unlawful Detainer Action Entitled It To Fee Recovery Under Civ. Code § 1717

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717

  Trial Court’s Denial of Fees Reversed Because Bank Was Prevailing Party.      Meeker v. Bank of America, N.A., Case No. B225289 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Feb. 26, 2012) (unpublished) illustrates that Civil Code section 1717’s mandate of awarding attorney’s fees to a prevailing party is indeed obligatory in nature, and that fee award denials–even

Reasonableness Of Fees: Over 20% Reduction In Requested Fees Established Reasonableness Of Trial Court Award Under Civil Code Section 1717

Cases: Reasonableness of Fees, Cases: Section 1717

  After All, When Initial Loser Became the Eventual Winner, Eventual Loser’s Fees Showed Eventual Winner’s Request Not All That Bad.      Bioquest Venture Leasing v. VivoRx Autoimmune, Inc., Case No. B225195 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Feb. 22, 2012) (unpublished) is one of those procedurally convoluted cases where plaintiff initially won and was awarded attorney’s

Scroll to Top