Absence of Contract Between the Parties With a Fee Clause Precluded Recovery. The Fourth District, Division 1, in Cornelius v. Vogt, Case Nos. D053035, D053286 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Feb. 5, 2010) (unpublished), reminds us all that there must be a governing contract between the parties to allow recovery of prevailing party fees under […]
Trial Court Had Jurisdiction to Award Fees While Merits Appeal Pending and Borrower Was the Prevailing Party. Borrower on a loan, even after an initial appeal, reduced a loan balance to only $3,602.72 after an offset for usurious interest. The lower court refused to award costs to lender and also awarded $43,960 to borrower
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
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 Even unpublished decisions result in a difference in opinion, as the next case involving Civil Code section 1717 demonstrates.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 Jan. 11, 2010) (unpublished) involved a somewhat gnarly dispute between
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
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"
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
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 In Silva v. Tong, Case No. A124903 (1st Dist., Div. 4 Dec. 11, 2009) (unpublished), plaintiff sought to enforce a purchase offer with an attorney’s fees clause as an enforceable contract even though it was never signed by defendants.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
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.,
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
