Putative Intervenor Never Became A Party, And No Assignment Of Rights To Him Was Shown.
In Weinsaft v. AMI and Deckel, Case No. B343222 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Oct. 20, 2026) (unpublished), a putative intervenor in a property partition action was denied intervention, which was affirmed in a prior appeal. Although intervenor attempted to get a reconsideration of that issue in the present appeal, “law of the case” prevented that from happening. However, the other side moved to recover attorney’s fees in the appeal based on a contractual fees clause in a settlement agreement. The appellate court denied that request for two reasons: (1) the fees clause only applied to a party, with putative intervenor never achieving that status; and (2) assignee language in the settlement agreement did not alter the result because no evidence of an assignment of rights to putative intervenor was introduced.