Cases: Section 1717

Civil Code Section 1717: Attorney’s Fees Awarded To Assignor And Against Assignee Reversed Where Nothing Showed Ability to Recoup Fees From the Assignment Relationship

Cases: Section 1717

Mutuality Principle Did Not Kick In Where No Basis For Fee Recovery Existed Between Assignor and Assignee.      Civil Code section 1717’s mutuality principle is well renowned and followed frequently. However, it will not even come into operation if there is no basis for the nonprevailing party to have recovered any contractual fees from the […]

Civil Code Section 1717: Settlement Of Easement Dispute Under Agreement With Fees Clause, After Defendants Sold The Property, Did Not Allow Fee Award Under Section 1717

Cases: Section 1717

  Procedurally Curious Easement Dispute Resulted in Split Opinion on Propriety of Section 1717 Fee Award.      Even unpublished decisions result in a difference in opinion, as the next case involving Civil Code section 1717 demonstrates.      Goldsmith v. Caldwell, Case Nos. C059420/C060427 (3d Dist. Jan. 11, 2010) (unpublished) involved a somewhat gnarly dispute between

Mike And Marc’s Top Twenty Decisions For 2009

Cases: Consumer Statutes, Cases: Liens for Attorney Fees, Cases: Retainer Agreements, Cases: Section 1717, Cases: Section 998, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Part 2 of 2: Second Ten Grouping—Nos. 1-10.      We already gave you our top 11-20 decisions previously this month.      As noted in an earlier post, we have accumulated our “top 20” attorney’s fees decisions, recognizing that we limit the list to published decisions and that the order reflects nothing about the importance of

Section 1717 Prevailing Party and Arbitration Grant: Fourth District, Division 1 Decides That Interim Decision Did Not Solidify Status Of Who Prevailed For Fee Award Purposes

Cases: Arbitration, Cases: Section 1717

Warburton Decision is a Companion to our December 28 Post on Lake v. Griffin, But in Inverse Fashion.      In our December 28, 2009 post, we reviewed Lake v. Griffin, where the Fourth District, Division 1 held that a denial of a motion to compel arbitration in an ongoing case was not a "discrete proceeding"

Arbitration Denial: Discrete Proceeding Or Ruling In A Continuing Action That Awaits A More Definitive Nature?

Cases: Arbitration, Cases: Section 1717

Fourth District, Division 1 Reverses Fee Award in Case Involving Reggie Bush … And Clarifies Otay River Constructors in the Process.      Here is one for all of you U.S.C. alumni or fans, involving civil litigation that impacts former collegiate football great Reggie Bush. The decision shows how the procedural context of a case can

Civil Code Section 1717: Mutuality Of Remedy Means Winner Gets Fees Even If Winner Proves There Was No Valid Contract

Cases: Reasonableness of Fees, Cases: Section 1717

Recent Case Illustrates Operation of this Mutuality Principle.      In Silva v. Tong, Case No. A124903 (1st Dist., Div. 4 Dec. 11, 2009) (unpublished), plaintiff sought to enforce a purchase offer with an attorney’s fees clause as an enforceable contract even though it was never signed by defendants. Defendants were granted summary judgment, and then

Fee Clause Interpretation and 998 Offers: Court Of Appeal Remands $400,000 Fee Award against Contractor But Affirms Separate $296,148.84 Against Contractor In Favor of Subcontractor

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Section 1717, Cases: Section 998

Fourth District, Division 1 Address Plethora of Fee Issues in Unpublished Decision.      Well, strap your helmets on, readers, because we now synopsize a 75-page unpublished decisions dealing with a cornucopia (a good word in celebration of upcoming Thanksgiving) of attorney’s fees issues under California law.      In The Gifted Schools v. Grahovac Construction Co.,

Fee Clause Interpretation: Landlord Awarded Substantial Attorney Fees For Prevailing In Three Actions Against Feisty Former Tenant

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees, Cases: Section 1717, Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees

  Court of Appeal Finds Fee Clause is Broad Enough to Encompass All Three Actions.      Under Civil Code section 1717, the key to recovering fees in disputes involving contract and tort claims often devolves to a determination of whether the fee clause is sufficiently broad to encompass matters “arising out of” or “concerning” the

Fee Clause Interpretation: Narrowly-Worded Fee Clause Did Not Allow For Fee Recovery By Attorney In Successfully Defending Against Legal Malpractice Action

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Section 1717

Fourth District, Division 1 So Holds In a Result Consonant With Prior Reviewed Decisions on this Website.      Here is one we have seen before, but bears repeating.      Attorney sues to collect on a receivable owed from a former client, but through a cross-complaint after client sues for legal malpractice. Attorney prevails in both

Civil Code Section 1717: Substance Of Motion Or Action Determines If “On The Contract” For Purposes of Contractual Fee Recovery

Cases: Section 1717

Two Unpublished Decisions Highlight the Key Distinction. 1. Solomon v. Solomon, Case No. B209627 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Nov. 12, 2009) (unpublished).      In this one, former wife sued to enforce a settlement agreement containing an attorney’s fees clause. She moved to enforce the settlement under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6, the statutory summary

Scroll to Top