$401,654 on Sole Contract Claim Sustained on Appeal by Sixth District.
In this category, the breadth of a fees clause may be case determinative when measured against the actual claims or cross-claims brought by a party. No more and no less, as the next case demonstrates–with the appellate court carefully analyzing the cross-claims at issue.
Defendant in Smith v. First Principle Church, Case No. H034075 (6th Dist. Jan. 27, 2011) (unpublished) won $401,654 (out of a requested $536,275 in fees, reflecting the work of 6 attorneys) after prevailing in a religious pension agreement dispute where there was a fees clause in the pension agreement. However, losing plaintiffs said hold on, there may be unresolved defense cross-claims under which I might prevail, so no go.
The appellate court gave a “red light” to the losing plaintiffs in this one.
Losing plaintiffs seem to argue that defendant’s cross-complaint, which was alive and well, may have been “on the contract” so that no final prevailing party analysis could be made until the cross-claims were resolved. After a very careful microanalysis of the cross-claims (recovery of corporate distributions, money had/received, and breach of fiduciary duty), the appellate court concluded these were statutory or tort claims (or spins on the same) not giving rise to fee exposure. As a result, losing plaintiffs could never recover fees on these cross-claims such that winning defendant’s fee award was vindicated in full.