Cases: Section 1717

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

Civil Code Section 1717: Absence Of Fees Clause Means One Award Reversed, While Remaining Award Was No Abuse of Discretion

Cases: Section 1717, Cases: Standard of Review, Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees

Second District, Division 8 Reinforces that Contemporaneous Time Record Submission Is Not a Fee Recovery Requirement.      This next case illustrates two important principles under Civil Code section 1717: (1) you need some fee entitlement basis—either a statute or contractual fees clause; and (2) California state law is more lenient on fee substantiation, although it

Civil Code Section 1717: Court of Appeal Reverses Fee Award Given That Neither Side Prevailed Under The Contract

Cases: Appealability, Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717

Fifth District Overturns Based on a Pragmatic Assessment of Litigation Results.      Who says that appellate courts are not pragmatic in their assessment of who prevailed for purposes of awarding attorney’s fees? That is the law after all, and the next case is an illustration of where a cause was reversed because neither side prevailed

Civil Code Section 1717: Litigants’ Failure To Be Adjudged General Partners, Although Winning A Small Quantum Meruit Award, Justified Non-prevailing Party Conclusion

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Estoppel, Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees, Cases: Section 1717

Result Was An Adverse Fee/Cost Award of Over $275,000      In Gupta v. Shue, Case No. B198449 (Apr. 30, 2009) (unpublished), both sides engaged in bitter, protracted litigation over whether each received, by assignment, a general partnership interest in a real estate limited partnership—with the limited partnership caught in the middle of the litigation. After

Civil Code Section 1717: Contractual Clause Cannot Enlarge Breadth Of Reach Of Section 1717 Recovery For Contract-Based Claims

Cases: Section 1717

Fourth District, Division 3 Reaffirms the Principle in Recent Unpublished Opinion.      Day to day, our intermediate appellate courts confront controversies involving application of Civil Code section 1717, the statutory provision that allows for enforcement of contractual fees clauses in favor of prevailing parties. However, the wording of the fees clauses themselves, for solely contractual

Civil Code Section 1717: Prevailing Nonparty to Settlement Agreement With Fees Clause Could Not Be Awarded Fees Where Enforcement Action Did Not Focus On Settlement Agreement

Cases: Estoppel, Cases: Section 1717

Fourth District, Division 3 Finds Section 1717 Cannot Be “Bootstrapped” Into Fee Entitlement For Breach of Contract With No Fees Provision.      Civil Code section 1717 focuses on mutuality of remedy for enforcement of contractual attorney’s fees clauses. However, it is not a statutory dragnet to enforce an oral settlement with no fees clause or

Scroll to Top