Cases: Section 1717

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Second District, Division Five So Holds In Unpublished Opinion.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

Court of Appeal Publishes Previously Unpublished Decision Reviewed On Our September 9, 2008 Post

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717

Fourth District, Division One Publishes FDIC v. Dintino.             In our September 9, 2008 post, we reviewed the decision of FDIC v. Dintino.  The decision held that success on noncontractual claims should not be considered when determining “prevailing party” status under Civil Code section 1717, but also indicated that work may frequently

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,

Scroll to Top