Cases: Section 1717

Section 1717/Reasonableness Of Fees: Promissory Note With Fees Clause Was “Action On The Contract” In Trust Deed Cancellation, Quiet Title, Declaratory Relief, Injunctive, Fraud And Slander Of Title Action

Cases: Reasonableness of Fees, Cases: Section 1717

  Dismissal for Failure to Prosecute Did Make Defendant the Prevailing Party.      In Halamandaris v. Sephos, Case No. C065819 (3d Dist. Apr 18, 2012) (unpublished), plaintiff’s action for the various claims described in our heading above was dismissed for failure to prosecute. The backdrop for all claims was a promissory note with a fees […]

Section 1717: Defendants Winning Appeal Where Settlement Agreement Had Fees Clause Were Entitled To Recovery During Motion Enforcement Proceedings

Cases: Section 1717

  Given that Plaintiff Should Have Dismissed But Didn’t, Motion Was Equivalent of a Section 1717 “Separate Action” Under the Circumstances.      Remember the law school principles of performance excused by the other’s side breach and frustration of purpose? Well, those types of principles drove the result in the next case.      In Miller v.

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

Scroll to Top