Clause Was Broad, No Apportionment Necessary For Jointly Represented Co-Defendant, And Awarded Fees Were Reasonable.
In Ocean View Resort Partnership v. Solanki, Case No. G048728 (4th Dist., Div. 3 April 2, 2015) (unpublished), plaintiff landlord lost a conventional lawsuit (not unlawful detainer) against defendant tenant based on certain tort claims, with the trial judge later awarding $46,206 in attorney’s fees under a lease contractual fees clause and $2,185.88 in routine costs in favor of the defense and against plaintiff landlord, including defense costs for one of landlord’s employees. That prompted an appeal by landlord.
The trial judge’s awards were affirmed on appeal, in a 3-0 decision authored by Justice Moore.
The problem here was that the unsuccessful tort claims were “on the contract” under Civil Code section 1717, meaning the fees expended on these claims were also recoverable. Although complaining that fees expended for landlord’s employee were not allowable, the appellate court found no apportionment was needed because landlord’s theory was that liability between the two defendants was interrelated. (Hill v. Affirmed Housing Group, 226 Cal.App.4th 1192, 1197 (2014).) With respect to amount of fees awarded, no real argument was presented to reverse what was awarded below.