Gives A Potential Litigant Over A Jointly Inherited House A Chance To Obtain Some Trial And Appellate Fees In The Future.
Tran v. Tran, Case No. H052186 (6th Dist. July 28, 2026) (unpublished) involved a real dispute between two siblings jointly inheriting a house from their father. As many cases devolve to, the main clash seemed to be over entitlement to attorney’s fees.
In this case, one sibling (Louis) won a summary judgment on his complaint and against sibling Lisa’s cross-complaint, with the allegations involving an agreement with a fees clause and partition/quiet title claims. Louis moved for attorney’s fees under the contractual fees clause (Civil Code section 1717), which was denied. [He requested $217,140 in fees.] Interestingly, although not contained in Louis’ fee motion, the trial judge did award $44,000 in common benefit fees to Louis under the partition statute (CCP § 874.020), after apportionment. Both parties appealed, but only Louis on the fee orders.
The appellate court reversed and remanded as to both fee rulings. On the contractual fee award, after focusing on allowing fees “if this agreement or transactions contemplated herein” give rise to fees, the Court of Appeal agreed this contractual language did not apply to Louis’ partition or quiet title claims because they were statutory and did arise under the contract. However, Lisa did allege some cross-claims which implicated the underlying contract, such that the contractual fee denial had to be reversed and remanded.
So, what about the partition fee award? That, too, got reversed, because Louis did not move for fees under that fee-shifting statute and basically conceded that was so on appeal. But, on remand, Louis could renew a fee request under the partition scheme given the matter was being remanded anyway.