Cases: Section 1717

Section 1717: Plaintiff’s Dismissal Of Lawsuit Predicated On Overpayment Under Notes With A Contractual Fee Clause Did Not Give Rise To Civil Code § 1717 Exposure

Cases: Section 1717

$20,041.50 Defense Fee Award Under Section 1717 Reversed As A Matter Of Law.             In Shetty v. Doshi, Case No. B321391 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Aug. 17, 2023) (unpublished), plaintiff brought an action claiming he overpaid on a promissory note and was subject to a usurious interest, although also bringing Financial Code and unfair competition […]

Section 1717: Dismissal Of Complaint Alleging Breach Of Contract, Whether Based On Contract Or Breach Of A Contractual Duty, Did Not Result In Fee Exposure Under Section 1717

Cases: Section 1717

Santisas (Our Leading Case #6) Dictated The Result.             In Rubin v. Cho, Case No. A165667 (1st Dist., Div. 5 July 6, 2023) (unpublished), close to trial, plaintiff dismissed a breach of contract complaint alleging the seller of a house failed to disclose all known material facts and defects affecting the property and make other

Section 1717: Denial Of Fees To Prevailing Creditor Was Correct Because Substantive Claims Were Not Based On A Note With A Fee Clause

Cases: Section 1717

Fee Entitlement Found Missing.             In Port Blue LLC v. Perlstein, Case No. B313030 (2d Dist., Div. 1 June 27, 2023) (unpublished), the trial judge denied contractual fees under a note to a prevailing creditor.  That result was affirmed on appeal because the rescission, money had/received, and declaratory relief claims were not based on the

Section 1717: $19,468.85 Fees Award Reversed As A Matter Of Law Because There Was No Contract With A Fee Clause

Cases: Section 1717

Fee Entitlement Was Missing In This Case.             In Fischer v. Ponce, Case No. B314254 (2d Dist., Div. 1 June 23, 2023) (unpublished), a party obtained judgment after a demurrer was sustained without leave, a determination affirmed on appeal.  The lower court then granted the prevailing party $19,468.85 in attorney’s fees.  That award was reversed

Fee Clause Interpretation, Section 1717: Second District Reverses Fee Awards Totaling $680,104.12 As A Matter Of Law

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Section 1717

One Award Reversed Because It Only Covered An Arbitration/Ensuing Litigation Even Though No Arbitration Occurred, And Other Award Overturned Because It Was Unclear That Fiduciary Breach Claim Was Not Barred By Santisas.             San Jose Nihonmachi, LLC v. Miraido Corp., Case No. B323093 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Jan. 4, 2023) (unpublished) shows how the absence

Section 1717: $74,930.80 Fee Award And $18,339.56 Costs Award Against Prevailing Party Neighbors In Equitable Servitude Dispute Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Section 1717

Equitable Servitude in an Amended Declaration if a Contract Under Civil Code Section 1717.          In DeBevoise v. Robinson, Case Nos. D078207/D078679 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Dec. 29, 2022) (unpublished), neighbors got involved in an equitable easement dispute, with plaintiffs/cross-defendants getting equitable easement relief and also obtaining a prevailing party contractual fees award under an

Section 1717: Plaintiff’s Failure To Raise Fee Entitlement Challenge And Failure To Oppose A Fee Motion Was A Waiver On Appeal

Cases: Section 1717

No Vital Public Policy Argument Presented To Prevent The Waiver Conclusion.             One of the most fundamental rules of appellate advocacy is waiver.  Generally, if an argument or objection is not presented at the trial court level, the appellate court will not review it.   The appellate court does have discretion to review a question of

Section 1717: $547,532.33 Contractual Fee Award Against Otis Elevator Based On Litigant’s Cross-Complaint Affirmed On Appeal In Duty To Defend Situation

Cases: Section 1717

It Was Irrelevant Who Paid The Fees, Law Of The Case Sustained The Award Based On Earlier Appellate Opinion, And Duty To Defend Ruling Was “On The Contract.”             In Sierra Pacific Properties, Inc. v. Otis Elevator Co., Case Nos. A162854 et al. (1st Dist., Div. 5 Nov. 21, 2022) (unpublished), Otis Elevator was not

Prevailing Party, Reasonableness Of Fees, Section 1717: $200,000 Fee Award To Prevailing Defendant Affirmed Because Tort Claims Allowed For Recovery, Post-Dismissal, Under Santisas

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

Settlement With Other Parties Did Not Impact Analysis Of Fee Reasonableness As To The Prevailing Defendant.             Carp Property, LLC v. Corona, Case No. B316354 (2d Dist., Div. 6 Nov. 17, 2022) (unpublished) was a situation where plaintiff litigated a matter for two years where there was a contractual fees clause in an operative agreement,

Scroll to Top