Cases: Section 1717

Prevailing Party: Unsuccessful Injunctive Action Was Discrete Legal Proceeding Allowing For Award Of Civil Code Section 1717 Fees

Cases: Arbitration, Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717

First District, Division 4 Follow Acosta-Otay Line of Cases.      There has been quite a splash of jurisprudence lately on the question of when a prevailing party can be adjudged in mixed legal-arbitration proceedings. The next case is the latest addition to the case law on this subject.      In Turner v. Schultz, Case Nos. […]

Civil Code Section 1717: Bankruptcy Related Actions Were Recoverable By Successful Lender

Cases: Bankruptcy Efforts, Cases: Discovery, Cases: Section 1717

Fourth District, Division 1 Finds No Basis To Assess Fees Against Nonsignatory Individual Principal In the Absence of an Alter Ego Finding.      In New Century Corporation v. Positive Investments, Inc., Case No. ECU03797 (4th Dist., Div. 1 July 8, 2009) (unpublished), lender was awarded attorney’s fees of $83,329 under an attorney’s fees clause of

Civil Code Section 1717: Court Of Appeal Sustains $15,000 Fee Award For $37,000 Rental Delinquency Case

Cases: Reasonableness of Fees, Cases: Section 1717

Fourth District, Division 2 Rebuffs Request for Over $40,000 in Fees.      Plaintiff landlord sued and ultimately recovered $37,420 in delinquent rent (plus $10,295.96 in interest) from former tenants who had abandoned commercial premises being rented in the past. Landlord won a prior judicial arbitration, being awarded $13,622 in fees and costs. However, when landlord

Civil Code Section 1717: Sixth District Affirms Trial Court Denial Of Fees To Defendant Where Plaintiff Dismissed Both Contract And Fraud Claims

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717

  Sixth District Applies Reasoning of Santisas.      The next case shows how appellate courts apply a pragmatic standard in gauging whether a party prevailed in order to recover attorney’s fees, even after a voluntarily dismissal of a fraud count where fees might be recoverable under an expansive Purchase Agreement clause.      Almog v. Mueller,

Homeowner Associations: Two Neighbors Duke It Out—One Neighbor Finally Prevails On Appeal, Meaning A Prior Denial of Fees Was Erroneous

Cases: Homeowner Associations, Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717

Fourth District, Division 3 Remands for Fee Redetermination in “Acrid Dispute Between Neighbors.”      Disputes between homeowner associations and members or neighbors in a common interest subdivision seem to result in overboilings of emotions and (ultimately) litigation resources. Many times, the final result—where both sides seek to recoup hefty attorney’s fees—results in a “wash,” with

Remedies, Fee Shifting Provisions and Settlement Efforts: Appellate Court Partially Reverses Based On Lack Of Privity But Sustains Other Fees In Complex Development Agreement Case

Cases: Section 1717, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Fourth District, Division 1 “Multitasks” in Covering a Wide Gamut of Fee Issues in Recent Unpublished Opinion.      Here is a review of a complex and wild decision covering a myriad of remedy and fees issues in the context of City of Novato’s dispute with a developer and its successor over performance of two separate

Civil Code Section 1717: Abandonment Of Contract Claim After Court Denied Leave Means No Fees Awardable To Prevailing Party

Cases: Section 1717

Fourth District, Division 3 Finds No Fees Were Expended Even Though Nonsuit Grant Could Give Rise to Fee Exposure Under Different Circumstances.      In an unusual procedural context, the Fourth District, Division 3 reversed an award of $73,026.79 in Civil Code section 1717 fees to defendants after the plaintiff neighbors lost nuisance and trespass claims

Homeowner Associations: Losing Condo Homeowners Associations Not Subject To Fee Exposure When Losing Action Against Past Board Member Defendants

Cases: Estoppel, Cases: Homeowner Associations, Cases: Section 1717

Purchase Agreement Fees Clause Did Not Apply Because Plaintiff Was Not A Condo Buyer.      One of the first rules of fee entitlement is that you need a contractual or statutory basis to trump the American Rule that each sides bears its own attorney’s fees in a case. That principle sunk the winning defendants’ request

Special Fee Shifting Statute: Third District Affirms $29,674 Fee Award Against Sacramento County In A Contempt Proceeding To Enforce Injunction Abating A Nuisance

Cases: Section 1717, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Court of Appeal Enforces Faces the Conflict Between Civil Code Section 1717 and Government Code Section 25845(c).      Civil Code section 1717 is straightforward in allowing for mutual recovery of attorney’s fees in California by a prevailing party where a contractual clause so authorizes such a recovery. However, sometimes this provision seemingly comes into conflict

Civil Code Section “Prevailing Party” . . . . Court Of Appeal Reverses Determination That Property Seller Getting $29.75 Million Properties Back Was Not The Winner For Fee Purposes Where Buyer Got Back $1.13 Million Deposit

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717

Fourth District, Division 1 Rejects “You Won One, I Won One” Scoreboard Approach to Section 1717.      This next case shows that appellate courts do indeed apply a pragmatic test when deciding whether a “prevailing party” determination rightfully gauged who obtained greater relief for purposes of awarding attorney’s fees under Civil Code section 1717. (For

Scroll to Top