Cases: Section 1717

Civil Code Section 1717: Broadly Worded Clause In Attorney Fee Retainer Resulted In Substantial Fee Award In Malpractice Action To Prevailing Client

Cases: Section 1717

Second District, Division Two Affirms $269,492.50 Fee Award Against Former Attorney Under Retainer Fee Clause.       A recurring theme of our website is that litigation frequently funnels (or devolves, depending on your perspective) down to which litigant wins attorney’s fees under a fee-shifting mechanism. The next case, yet again, is a classic example of how […]

Civil Code Section 1717: Fees Incurred In Previously Dismissed Action Properly Allowed In Refiled Action Where First Action Work Necessarily Used in Second Action.

Cases: Appealability, Cases: Section 1717

Fourth District, Division Three Also Faces Grant/P R Burke Appeal Untimeliness Issue.      Two interesting issues were raised in Presiding Justice Sills’ opinion on behalf of the Fourth District, Division Three in Kenney v. Tanforan Park Shopping Center, Case Nos. G038323 & G039372 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Dec. 15, 2008) (unpublished). The first concerns timeliness

Civil Code Section 1717 and Code of Civil Procedure Section 998: Poof! Substantial Fee/Cost Award Reversed Where Underlying Judgment Was Reversed

Cases: POOF!, Cases: Section 1717, Cases: Section 998

    Fourth District, Division Three Finds That Abandonment of Action Must Be Clear Before Dismissal Is Entered; With Dismissal Gone, Fee/Cost Award Is Also Reversed.      California litigators frequently have heard the mantra that "cases are to be tried or heard on the merits." In line with that, there are corollary principles, such as pretrial

Independent Claims Adjustor Obtains Affirmance of Fee Award Under Contract With Insurance Carrier

Cases: Estoppel, Cases: Section 1717

Fourth District, Division One Rejects Judicial Estoppel Argument and Awards Fees on Appeal (to be Determined by the Trial Court).      Who says that everyone in the insurance industry is cozy-cozy with each other? Not a foregone conclusion at all, especially when assertions of claims mishandling may cast aspersions on the reputation of the claims

Civil Code Section 1717: Fees Are Not Awardable Where Plaintiff Dismisses Action With Prejudice After The Start of Trial

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717, Cases: Section 998

Second District, Division Four Also Rejects That Letter Containing Purported CCP Section 998 Offer Was Valid Where Opposing Party Not Given Full Statutory Period Within Which to Accept.      Presiding Justice Epstein, writing for a 3-0 panel of the Second District, Division Four, recently authored an interesting opinion in which attorney’s fees were not allowed

Civil Code Section 1717: Litigant Losing A Demurrer With Leave And Failing To Amend Can Be Exposed To An Adverse Fee Award Despite Ongoing Litigation Between Other Named Parties

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717

Litigant Failing to Dismiss After Losing a Demurrer With Leave May Be in Danger, Fourth District, Division Two Rules.      Under Santisas v. Goodin, 17 Cal.4th 599, 602, 622 (1998) [see our Leading Cases], litigants potentially exposed to fee awards under Civil Code section 1717 can avoid adverse consequences by voluntarily dismissing their actions way

Fourth District, Division Three Affirms Attorney’s Fees Award In Two Real Estate Cases

Cases: Homeowner Associations, Cases: Lodestar, Cases: Section 1717, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Seller Hit With Fees In a Water Accumulation Concealment Case; Neighbors Obtain Fees Against Neighbors In Tree Obstruction View Case.      In these interesting financial times, we find that real estate disputes still fester and produce interesting posts on attorney’s fees issues. The next two cases do not disappoint, originating from our local Santa Ana

Wrongful Foreclosure And Home Improvement Case: Fees Are Sustained And Remanded For Calculation In Wild Decision Out Of The Second District

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Deeds of Trust, Cases: Section 1717, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Section 1717 Fees Are Affirmed As to Husband, Reversed and Remanded As to Wife; Home Improvement Statutory Fees Are Affirmed As to Both Husband and Wife.      Talk about a wild one. If any of you readers believe that legal cases do not mimic real life, you need to read and stay tuned for our

Santisas Prevails: Where Parties Stipulate To Dismissal Of Party (Even Though No Formal Dismissal Was Ever Filed), Prevailing Party Cannot Then Claim An Award of Attorney’s Fees Against “Dismissed” Party

Cases: Section 1717

Second District, Division Five So Holds In Unpublished Opinion.      In Santisas v. Goodin, 17 Cal.4th 599, 617 (1998), the California Supreme Court held that  plaintiff's voluntary dismissal of a contract-based action bars a prevailing defendant from recovering attorney's fees incurred in defending the contract claims under Civil Code section 1717.  The next case involves

Scroll to Top