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 Jan. 20, 2022) (unpublished), a borrower and lender won and lost some claims where there were contractual attorney’s fees clauses in […]
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
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malpractice case, Thompson v. Flynn Riley Bailey & Pasek, LLP, Case No. A161238 (1st Dist., Div. 4 Dec. 30, 2021) (unpublished).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
$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 In Bays v. Ashcraft, Case No. D079056 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Nov. 18, 2021) (unpublished), borrowers and lender got into a tussle, with there being mixed results but with the
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 In Nationstar Mortgage v. Abalkhad, Case No. B303946 (2d Dist., Div. 1 October 22, 2021) (unpublished), homeowner in judicial
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 Otay Land Co., LLC v. U.E. Limited LLC, Case No. D077274 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Oct. 20, 2021) (unpublished) reminds us that Civil Code section 1717 reciprocity
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 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Oct. 5, 2021) (unpublished), although a convoluted opinion, stresses a lesson we have posted on under Civil Code section 1717—“incurred” is a term of art and can encompass pro bono,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
$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
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
Two Separate Contracts Were At Issue – With Plaintiff Prevailing On The Asset Purchase Agreement And Defendant Prevailing On The Employment Contract. In Colaco v. Cavotec SA, Case NO. G059418 (4th Dist., Div. 3 June 24, 2021) (unpublished), plaintiffs corporation and its sole shareholder/CEO entered into an Asset Purchase Agreement and Plan of Reorganization
