Cases: Section 1717

Attorney’s Fees Are Not Recoverable Under Contract Which Has Been Held Inadmissible Under Mediation Confidentiality Statutory Provisions

Cases: Mediation, Cases: Section 1717

Second District So Holds in Published Decision Relating to an Inadmissible Settlement Agreement: Civil Code section 1717 Does Not Trump the Mediation Privilege.             As framed by the Second District, Division Four, the attorney’s fees portion of the case involved a question of first impression—whether attorney’s fees are recoverable under Civil Code […]

Second Sentence Of Civil Code Section 1717(a) Precludes Restricted Application Of Mutuality Principle Unless Parties Recite That Counsel Was Involved In Negotiation and Execution Of The Contract

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Section 1717

Second District, Division Eight Reverses Lower Court Determination Denying Fee Based on Limited Scope of Fees Clause.             In enacting Civil Code section 1717, the Legislature made it abundantly clear that mutuality principles are to govern interpretation of attorney’s fees clauses such that unilaterally worded provisions are construed as reciprocal in nature. 

Cross-Complainant Owners, In Home Renovation Contract Dispute, Are “Prevailing Parties” And Were Not Answerable To Ambiguous CCP Section 998 Offer

Cases: Section 1717, Cases: Section 998

Fourth District, Division One So Rules in Interpreting Civil Code section 1717 and Code of Civil Procedure section 998.             The next case is a nice refresher on Civil Code section 1717 “prevailing party” principles and on clarity requirements for Code of Civil Procedure section 998 offers.  (For more case discussion, see

Deed of Trust Fee Clause: Successor Borrower Assuming Loan Without Lender Consent Held Subject To Fee Award Exposure

Cases: Deeds of Trust, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Section 1717

Fourth District, Division Two Holds Successor Bound By Fee Clause in Loan Documents.             In this interesting time of economic woes, there are many persons who “assume” loans from borrowers without lender consent.  Not only can this practice likely trigger “due on sale” clauses, it also may expose the successor borrower to

Nonsignatory Defendants Denied Attorney’s Fees Award Where They Would Not Have Been Entitled to Recovery Had They Won

Cases: Estoppel, Cases: Section 1717

Fifth District, in an Unpublished Opinion, Rejects Reasoning From Both Abdallah and International Billing Services in Affirming Lower Court Fee Denial.              In our four months of blogging, we have covered both published and unpublished California appellate decisions.  We have found that the unpublished decisions are still valuable for their analysis, although

Civil Code Section 1717 Mandates Fee Award To Unqualified Winner On Contract Claim And Requires Reversal of Award Against Contract Nonsignatories

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Second District, Division One Affirms and Reverses Portions of Fee Award Under Contractual Provision and Discretionary Fee-Shifting Statutes.             By now, it should be apparent that there are stark differences in how some fee-shifting statutes operate.  Civil Code section 1717 mandates an award to a "prevailing party" under a contractual fees clause,

Borrower Prevailing On Contract Claim Entitled To Fee Award Even Though He Did Not Prevail On Noncontractual Claims

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Section 1717

Fourth District, Division One Reverses Fee Denial Based on Hsu v. Abbara.             We survey unpublished decisions because they frequently reinforce distinctions that get lost in translation because of the diffuse opinions on the “prevailing party” concept in California attorney’s fees award jurisprudence.  The next case reminds us that the “prevailing party”

Defendants Winning Declaratory Relief Action Against 1031 Purchaser Entitled To Fee Award Under Fees Clause of Purchase Agreement

Cases: Section 1717

Declaratory Relief Count Never Dismissed Was Proper Anchor for Fee Award.             Contractual fee clauses certainly shift the risks in civil litigation.  Civil Code section 1717 is a legislative embodiment of that policy, going so far as to make sure that unilateral fee clauses are construed as being mutual in nature.  The

Second District, Division Eight Follows Leach Rule On Judicial Estoppel In Section 1717 Situations

Cases: Estoppel, Cases: Section 1717

Division Eight Refuses to Follow Manier’s “Allegations Alone Suffice” Estoppel Theory.             In a wild case involving contentions of contract formation, untimely acceptance, and a critically forged document, the Second District, Division Eight affirmed a trial court’s equitable rulings but modified a judgment to delete an attorney’s fees award against a nonsignatory

Winning Joint Venture Litigant Denied Attorney’s Fees Because The Operative Memorandum Of Understanding Had No Fees Clauses And Other Peripheral Contracts With Fees Clauses Were Not Part of An Integrated Transaction

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Section 1717, Cases: Standard of Review

Sixth District Finds That Stock Option and Voting Trust Agreements Were Not Interrelated and Never Sued Upon In Winning Litigant’s Complaint.             Under Civil Code section 1717, one needs a written agreement with a fee clause for potential attorney’s fees recovery.  Many times, there are several agreements involved in an overall transaction,

Scroll to Top