Ex-Wife Cannot Surmount Abuse of Discretion Review Standard. Family Code section 271, which we have explored many times before, is a statutory provision that allows family judges to sanction parties or litigants in family law proceedings where they fail to promote settlement or fail to cooperate so as to drive up costs. No actual […]
Fourth District, Division 3 Finds Fee Motion Was Timely and Awarded Fees Were Not Too High. In Mallard v. Progressive Choice Ins. Co., Case Nos. G042527/G042710 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Sept. 15, 2010) (certified for publication), defendant (an insurance company’s litigation attorney) won a SLAPP motion and was awarded fees of $13,756.64 under the
Fourth District, Div. 1 Concludes That Not All Attorney’s Fee Awards Are Equal For Purposes Of Automatic Stay On Appeal. In the next case, the Court of Appeal has gifted us with a 47 page opinion arising from the fact that homeowners in a condominium association installed two sandstone-colored windows, rather than two dark-brown
Fifth District agrees the Case is “screwed up.” The story arc of this opinion begins at a low point, and plummets. “What the heck?I?,” begins the Court of Appeal opinion. “At one point, the trial court commented, ‘This is one of the most screwed up cases I’ve ever seen.’ We heartily agree.” Essex Insurance
Fourth District, Div. Two, Upholds $5,000 Award in Attorney’s Fees to Wife, Where Husband Failed to Cite Evidence Supporting a Denial of the Request for Fees. Mr. Parga sought to terminate his spousal support obligations to his former wife. The court denied the husband’s request and awarded the wife $5,000 in attorney’s fees. An
Second District, Division 2 Does Reverse Section 1717 Award To Nonsuing Partnership. Here is an interesting case litigated on appeal by a former Second District jurist that shows how the absence of the requirement of a statement of decision can impede an appeal, in tandem with a failure to specifically document the error. The
Fourth District, Division 3 Opinion Demonstrates Interplay Between De Novo and Abuse of Discretion Review Standards on Different Fee Award Issues. The next case shows how a litigant may convince an appellate court that legal error was committed (de novo review of a fee entitlement issue), but the battle for reversal is lost
Plaintiff Does Not Convince Appellate Court to Award More, With Fourth District, Division Commenting on Some “Cutting Edge” Substantive Questions. Although the next case could be viewed as just a simple abuse of discretion case, it actually discusses some interesting tensions between federal and state cases on the specificity of reasoning that must be
Almost $500,000 in Total Fees Assessed Against Losing Homeowners. For all you Olympic watchers out there, this next case will resonate the famous “agony of defeat” line from ABC’s Wide World of Sports. In Sharp v. Anderson, Case No. B212528 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Feb. 18, 2010) (unpublished), plaintiff neighboring real property owners
Both Determinations Affirmed on Appeal. In Marinos v. City of Rocklin, Case Nos. C058958/C060844 (3d Dist. Nov. 4, 2009) (unpublished), defendants City and landlord prevailed on a summary judgment motion based on plaintiffs not complying with a notice provision in a settlement agreement with a fees clause. The trial court then awarded defendants $184,605
