Cases: Section 1717

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malpractice case, Thompson v. Flynn Riley Bailey & Pasek, LLP, Case No. A161238 (1st Dist., Div. 4 Dec. 30, 2021) (unpublished).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             In Bays v. Ashcraft, Case No. D079056 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Nov. 18, 2021) (unpublished), borrowers and lender got into a tussle, with there being mixed results but with the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             In Nationstar Mortgage v. Abalkhad, Case No. B303946 (2d Dist., Div. 1 October 22, 2021) (unpublished), homeowner in judicial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             Otay Land Co., LLC v. U.E. Limited LLC, Case No. D077274 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Oct. 20, 2021) (unpublished) reminds us that Civil Code section 1717 reciprocity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

Prevailing Party, Section 1717: 4/3 DCA Affirms $2 Million Section 1717 Fee Award To Plaintiff And $4.6 Million Section 1717 Fee Award To Defendant

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717

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

Sanctions, Section 1717, Special Fee Shifting Statutes: 2/7 DCA Reverses Sanctions Imposed Against Builder Defendants For Violation Of Stay Order Regarding A Development Project Of Four Homes In The Coastal Zone Of Venice.

Cases: Sanctions, Cases: Section 1717, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Stay Order Was Vague And Did Not Provide Builder With Information As To How It Was Supposed To Act Or What Conduct Would Violate The Stay.             In Rudisill v. California Coastal Commission, Case No. B299331 (2d Dist., Div. 7 June 22, 2021) (unpublished), two residents who opposed a development project consisting of four homes

Judgment Enforcement, Section 1717, Undertaking: Denial Of § 1717 Attorney Fees To Third Party Entities Defeating Postjudgment Alter Ego Claims Reversed, But Denial Of Release Of Undertaking To Successful Member/Partner Affirmed

Cases: Judgment Enforcement, Cases: Section 1717, Cases: Undertaking

The Third District Followed The Reciprocity Principle Of § 1717 Set Forth In Reynolds Metals, MSY Trading, And 347 Group In Reversing The Fees Denial, But Affirmed Trial Court’s Denial Of Release Of Undertaking Based On Member/Partner’s Failure To Provide Notice.             In Westwood Homes, Inc. v. AGCPII Villa Salerno Member, LLC, Case No. C089127

Scroll to Top