Lower Court Erred in Failing to Find Fee Entitlement, to Determine Prevailing Party Status, or to Make Any Apportionments in Summarily Denying Diverse Defense Fee Requests.
Trial courts do have a duty to examine fee entitlement, to determine prevailing party status, and to make any apportionments when examining diverse fee requests by different defendants. Failure to do so may result in a reversal and remand, as it did in the next unpublished decision.
Wesbey v. Toll CA IV, L.P., Case No. D054191 (4th Dist., Div. 1 May 27, 2010) (unpublished) involved different developer, HOA, and homeowner defendants who prevailed in an access easement dispute with other plaintiff homeowners. Plaintiffs had brought an action alleging numerous theories, but among them were claims based on the CC&Rs—which usually carry fee entitlement under Civil Code section 1717 and/or Civil Code section 1354(c). However, the trial court was unconvinced that the case really involved CC&Rs, even though the defendants did have to defend against some claims that were based on them. It summarily denied the fee requests brought by the different defendants.
The Fourth District, Division 1 reversed and remanded with directions to separately address the prevailing party status or need for apportionment as to each defendant. Fee entitlement was evident based on either section 1717 or 1354, with the appellate court providing the lower court some apportionment guidance on remand. (See Bell v. Vista Unified School Dist., 82 Cal.App.4th 672, 686-687 (2000).)