Second District, Division 7 Finds Mutual Mistake Gave Rise to Rescission, Overturning a Landlord Win and Favorable Attorney’s Fees Award. Here is another POOF! The Second District, Division 7, in Howard v. Encino Group Retail LLC, Case No. B204865 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Mar. 18, 2009) (unpublished) reversed a summary judgment in […]
Second District, Division 6 Affirms Substantial Fee Award Based on “Tenaciousness” Factor. For all attorneys winning contentious real estate litigation with a contractual fees clause, you may have a good chance of recouping most of your fees on behalf of clients under Civil Code section 1717, especially where your opponent was aggressive and tenacious
First District, Division Five Follows Blickman Turkus and Sessions Decisions. This next case is a virtual paradigm for students of fees clauses in exclusive listing agreements involving MLS brokers who sue sellers and then lose. It deals with judicial estoppel and fee clause interpretation issues frequently seen in these types of disputes. Menasco
Fourth District, Division 3 Affirms Lower Court Fees/Costs Award. Here is a sign of the times. Delinquent borrower enters into a Forbearance Agreement with lender. There is a mistaken tax refund paid to lender as part of the forbearance that gets disgorged, with borrower indicating that lender took a risk with respect to paying
Trope Does Not Bar Assistive Efforts. In Hance v. Smith, Case No. D051917 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Mar. 3, 2009) (unpublished), respondent on appeal was found to be entitled to attorney’s fees under a Memorandum of Understanding when he successfully utilized an attorney in helping fend off appellant’s motion to obtain dissolution of
First District, Division 3 Decides Dismissal is Final For Section 1717 Purposes. Recently, we have seen a slew of decisions, mainly unpublished, on what situations constitute finality for purposes of justifying a fee award under Civil Code section 1717. They go from one extreme like Santisas v. Goodin, 17 Cal.4th 599 (1998) (where the
Court of Appeal Affirms Substantial Fee Award, But Reverses CCP Section 128.7 Sanctions. As our Mission Statement warns, attorney’s fees can make or break a litigant given the high costs of taking a case to verdict or decision. The next litigant learned this message all too well, when a substantial fee award was affirmed
Fourth District, Division 3 Splits On Liability Issue, But Decides No Fees. In a first impression decision, involving a matter of last impression, a Fourth District, Division 3 panel split on whether a cemetery’s temporary interment of a stranger in a family plot adjacent to one’s parents may give rise to an emotional distress
Fourth District, Division 1 Distinguishes Its Own Otay Decision. It is interesting that certain issues pop up and are discussed by different appellate courts around the same time frame. In our February 20, 2008 post, we explored Hall-Mark Services, Inc. v. Harris & Associates, an unpublished Third District decision that distinguished Otay River
Local Santa Ana Appellate Court Follows Santisas. Santisas v. Goodin, 17 Cal.4th 599 (1998) is one of our Leading Cases, where the California Supreme Court held that contractual fees are not available under Civil Code section 1717(b)(2) where a case has been voluntarily dismissed or dismissed pursuant to a settlement of the case
