Cases: Section 1717

Prevailing Party, Section 1717, Section 998: 1/4 DCA Reverses Trial Court’s Denial Of Section 998 Fees To Defendant Who Entered Handwritten Agreement To Transfer Real Property Valued At More Than His 998 Offer.

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

Plaintiffs Voluntarily Dismissed Action Without Terms Of Handwritten Agreement Being Met And Property Was Never Transferred.             In Debenedetti v. Debenedetti, Case No. A162074 (1st Dist., Div. 4 January 24, 2022) (unpublished), plaintiff brothers, who were successor co-trustees of their father’s trust, filed an action against their brother for breach of a promissory note securing […]

Section 1717: Prevailing Borrower’s Win Was On Tort, Not Contract Claims, Such That Contractual Fees Were Not Justified

Cases: Section 1717

Lender Also Asked For Fees For Prevailing On Contract Claims, But That Was Forfeited By Not Timely Asking For Them Earlier.             In Vakili v. Bank of America, N.A., Case No. C091767 (3d Dist. Jan. 20, 2022) (unpublished), a borrower and lender won and lost some claims where there were contractual attorney’s fees clauses in

Prevailing Party, Section 1717: In Contentious Litigation Where A Default Judgment Was Vacated, Party Attempting To Pay Off The Amount In Dispute Was Finally The Prevailing Party

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717

Section 1717 Tender Rules Were At Issue, Affirming Determination That The Party Attempting To Settle The Debt Was In The Right.             Believe me, the equities in a case do matter, even one involving numerous lower court proceedings (both in California and Maryland courts) and six appeals considered by the Second District.             This is

Damages, Section 1717: In Malpractice Case For Missed Appeal, Borrowers Recovered Only A Portion Of Fees Paid To Trustee Because Trustee Was Entitled To Recovery Under § 1717 Such That The Additional Fees Were Not Chargeable Against Malpractice Defendant

Cases: Fees as Damages, Cases: Section 1717

Case-Within-Case Malpractice Principles Drove The Result.             As our last post for 2021, we discuss fee recovery as damages in an interesting legal malpractice case, Thompson v. Flynn Riley Bailey & Pasek, LLP, Case No. A161238 (1st Dist., Div. 4 Dec. 30, 2021) (unpublished).             What happened in this one was that borrowers received some

Prevailing Party, Section 1717: Where Result Was Mixed, Trial Court Did Not Err In Determining That Prevailing Party Borrowers Prevailed More Than Lender

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717

$107,605.20 Fee Award Was The Borrowers’ Gain; Some Tort Claims, If Related To Enforcement Of A Note, Are Recoverable Under Civil Code Section 1717.             In Bays v. Ashcraft, Case No. D079056 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Nov. 18, 2021) (unpublished), borrowers and lender got into a tussle, with there being mixed results but with the

Deeds of Trust, Section 1717: Trial Court’s Award Of $508,186.49 In Attorney’s Fees To Loan Servicer Acting As Agent For Mortgage Loan Owner In Judicial Foreclosure Action Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Deeds of Trust, Cases: Section 1717

Mortgage Loan Owner’s Entitlement To Contractual Fees Under Note And Deed Of Trust Fee Provisions Transferred To Loan Servicer When It Was Authorized To Act As Loan Owner’s Agent In Enforcing The Deed Of Trust.             In Nationstar Mortgage v. Abalkhad, Case No. B303946 (2d Dist., Div. 1 October 22, 2021) (unpublished), homeowner in judicial

Fee Clause Interpretation, Section 1717: Where Cross-Complaint Did Not Involve Any Enforcement Or Promise Breaches Of A Purchase Agreement With A Fees Clause, Attorney’s Fees Lacked Any Entitlement Basis

Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Section 1717

Section 1717 Did Not Change The Analysis, Because The Scope Of The Fee Clause Can Only Relate To Contractual Claims—Meaning CCP § 1021 Must First Be Overcome.             Otay Land Co., LLC v. U.E. Limited LLC, Case No. D077274 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Oct. 20, 2021) (unpublished) reminds us that Civil Code section 1717 reciprocity

Section 1717: Simply Because A Fee Retention Was A Company Obligation, Does Not Mean It Might Not Be Recoverable

Cases: Section 1717

California Caselaw Dictated The Result.             Legendary Builders v. Grovewood Properties, Case Nos. B297299 et al. (2d Dist., Div. 4 Oct. 5, 2021) (unpublished), although a convoluted opinion, stresses a lesson we have posted on under Civil Code section 1717—“incurred” is a term of art and can encompass pro bono, reduced efforts, and non-business compensation

Nonsignatories, Section 1717: Lenders, As Third-Party Beneficiaries, Properly Awarded Attorney’s Fees Under Broad Fee Clause Encompassing Tort Claims

Cases: Nonsignatories, Cases: Section 1717

$150,000 Was The Fee Award Affirmed In Lenders’ Favor As Prevailing Cross-Defendants.             Hom v. Petrou, Case No. A161770 (1st Dist., Div. 4 Aug. 3, 2021) (published) involved a $150,000 contractual attorney’s fees award in favor of lenders obtaining a dismissal of a cross-complaint alleging primarily tort claims.  The 1/4 DCA affirmed, holding that there

Probate, Section 1717: Section 1717 Prevailing Party Attorney Fees Of $84,402 Awarded To Plaintiff Pursuant To Trust’s No-Contest Clause Reversed On Appeal

Cases: Probate, Cases: Section 1717

No Basis For Fees Under No-Contest Clause Because Trust And Its Terms Were Not Contested, And Plaintiff Forfeited Argument For Fees Under Prob. Code § 17211(b) By Not Raising It Below.             In Haley v. Konatich, Case No. A160725 (1st Dist., Div. 2 June 29, 2021) (unpublished), three siblings were the beneficiaries of their late

Scroll to Top