Cases: Section 1717

Civil Code Section 1717: $281,058 Fee Award To Prevailing Party Affirmed Even Though Damage Award Only $60,500

Cases: Indemnity, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees, Cases: Section 1717

  Contentiousness of Opponent Was One Factor Justifying the Hefty Award.      Defendant in a contract dispute with plaintiff won $60,500 in damages, beating a Code of Civil Procedure section 998 pretrial offer of $62,001 (after preoffer costs were added in) made by plaintiff. Then, due to a contractual fees clause in the operative agreement, […]

Section 1717: General Manager, Non-Owner Of Landlord Entity Entitled To Seek Recovery Of Attorney’s Fees In Lease Dispute

Cases: Section 1717

Second District, Division 2 Nixes Primary Trope Challenge On Appeal.      Here is an interesting one to add to the Trope jurisprudence, although it is unpublished in nature. The end result is that a general manager of a represented client likely is analogous to an in-house counsel lacking the personal interest to disqualify the manager’s

Fee Clause Interpretation: CAR Broker Fee Clause Draws Starkly Different Views On Fee Recovery In Unpublished Decision

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Section 1717

  First District, Division 2 Panel Has Very Divergent Perspectives on Breadth of Fee Clause.      Here is a very interesting unpublished decision about the interpretation of a CAR form fee clause in a brokerage contract. The main dispute centered upon the interpretation of the scope of this provision: “In any action, proceeding or arbitration

Section 1717: Trope Limitation Is Trumped By Broadly Worded Fees Clause In Unpublished Decision

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Section 1717

Second District, Division 4 So Holds, Noting No Decisions On Point.      We have examined numerous cases that have denied an award of attorney’s fees under Civil Code section 1717 because of the limitation set forth in Trope v. Katz, 11 Cal.4th 274 (1995), holding that in pro per attorneys representing themselves cannot obtain fee

Section 1717: Although Legal Error Present In Not Finding Fee Entitlement, Fee Denial Affirmed Because Of Failure To Apportion

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Section 1717, Cases: Standard of Review

  Fourth District, Division 3 Opinion Demonstrates Interplay Between De Novo and Abuse of Discretion Review Standards on Different Fee Award Issues.      The next case shows how a litigant may convince an appellate court that legal error was committed (de novo review of a fee entitlement issue), but the battle for reversal is lost

Section 1717 And Fees Clause Interpretation: Broad Fees Clause Meant Trial Court Erred In Denying Fee Recovery To Prevailing Mortuary

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

Second District, Division 6 Also Holds Fees Do Not Have To Be Apportioned.      Broad contractual language allowing for fee recovery “in any lawsuit or other legal proceeding to which this Agreement gives” can even grant entitlement to fee recovery with respect to tort claims. (Xuereb v. Marcus & Millichap, Inc., 3 Cal.App.4th 1338, 1342-1343

Section 1717: Trope Staunches Another Fee Request

Cases: Section 1717

Founding Shareholder Representing Law Firm Was Disqualified From Fee Recovery.      Although Civil Code section 1717 is one of the better known fee-shifting statutes, there are restrictions to it. One such restriction pertains to attorneys who elect to represent themselves, with Trope v. Katz, 11 Cal.4th 274, 277 (1995) establishing that an attorney representing himself

Scroll to Top