Specific Settlement Agreement Terms Shot Down The Defense’s “No Fee Entitlement” Argument.
The defense in this wrongful repossession action under various consumer statutes with fee-shifting provisions was likely shocked by a trial court’s award of $128,004.50 in attorney’s fees and $3,738.87 in costs given that the settlement amount to plaintiff was only $8,600 subject to the determination on the fees/costs petitions. The appellate court was not in Medina v. South Coast Car Company, Inc., Case No. D069820 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Sept. 19, 2017) (unpublished).
The primary obstacle for the defense was that these litigants stipulated in a settlement agreement to not dispute entitlement to fee recovery and to acknowledge plaintiff was the prevailing party for fee recovery, reserving challenged to the reasonableness of any fee request. The defense efforts to backtrack from these settlement stipulations did not resonate on appeal. Although one of the defendants argued the result was unfair for a holder of finance paper on the car, the appellate court indicated—aside from the settlement—that those concerns were best left considered by the Legislature.