Restrictions On Its Application Necessitated Reversal In This Case. As far as challenges to fee awards, we would have to say that challenges to awards under the “tort of another” doctrine have higher chances of reversal, based on the restrictions applicable to use of this doctrine. Los Angeles Community College Dist. v. Roosevelt […]
Contractual/Statutory Fee Deadlines And Other Principles Did Not Apply. Lambert v. Francis, Case No. H041665 (6th Dist. Sept. 21, 2016) (unpublished) involved a long-standing case, with multiple appeals, between prevailing property purchasers and losing seller, with the seller eventually obtained equitable indemnity rights against dual brokers also sued in the overall case. After
Problem Was That Joint Tortfeasor Situation Will Not Justify Fees Under This Theory. Raicevic v. Lopez, Case No. D061253 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Jan. 23, 2015) (unpublished) illustrates a principle that is important in this area of the law—“tort of another” fees will not be awarded in a multiple tortfeasor situation. What
Implied Contractual and Equitable Indemnity Theories Cannot Undermine American Rule. Dalton v. Francis, Case No. H033247 (6th Dist. June 26, 2014) (unpublished) involved a buyer lawsuit against seller and dual real estate agents for nondisclosures in connection with a residential sale regarding a dilapidated septic system. The problem was that seller and individual brokers negligently
“No Tort” Holding Is Not Unanimous Among DCAs. On May 2, 2014, we posted on Mega RV Corp. v. HWH Corp., a 4/3 DCA opinion holding that the absence of a tort meant attorney’s fees could not be awarded under the “tort of another” doctrine. In denying a rehearing request, this decision has
Retail Mobilehome Seller Owes No Independent Tort Duty To Component Part Manufacturer. Justice Ikola, on behalf of the Fourth District, Division 3, has penned an interesting decision in Mega RV Corp. v. HWH Corp., Case No. G047718 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Apr. 30, 2014) (published) in the Song-Beverly Consumer Act area. In the
Broker Also Liable To Insured for Fees Under Tort of Another, But Matter Had To Be Reconsidered Given Reversal Of Judgment In Favor Of Insured And Against Insurer. De La Torre v. Century Surety Co., Case No. D061028 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Feb. 24, 2014) (unpublished) was tripartite litigation involving insured versus insurer,
Very interesting, but not funny. In Kayne Anderson Private Investors v. Colak, Case No B239111 (2d Dist., Div. 2 May 16, 2013) (unpublished), plaintiffs got hit with a multimillion arbitration award based on breaching a Stock Purchase Agreement representation/warranty by providing inaccurate information (although not being found liable for fraud). A CEO of one
Plaintiff won contract/tort claims arising from loans made to a deceased person brokered by an unlicensed broker who happened to be a trustee of the deceased person’s trust. The win included defeating a usury counterclaim brought by the estate. The lower court then found that plaintiff was entitled to attorney’s fees as additional
No Prejudice In Arguing All Defendants Should Be Liable/Failure to Claim Tort of Another Fee Damages At Trial Dispositive Against Fee Petitioner. DeSantis v. Oakmont LLC, Case No. A128220 (1st Dist., Div. 5 Dec. 7, 2012) (unpublished) is a wild case on appeal involving parties suing over a failed real estate transaction, with
