No Abuse Of Discretion In Deciding That Fees Paid To Discharged Interpleader Parties Did Not Have To Be Reimbursed By Other Non-Neutral Party.
Lender Currency makes high interest loans to songwriters obtaining royalty streams, while Wertheim, LLC obtains assignments of royalty rights and causes of action against Currency from the songwriters in return for some monetary payments, according to the appellate court in the next published decision we post on. Wertheim, LLC v. Omidvar, Case No. B262485 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Sept. 29, 2016) (published) is one of the disputes between these two parties, involving primarily royalties due to Maibell Page, widow of successful songwriter Eugene Page.
Wertheim obtained a $672,122 arbitration award against Currency subsequently confirmed as a judgment, with Wertheim seeking to enforce the judgment through companies owing royalties to Mrs. Page. These companies filed an interpleader against Wertheim and Currency, obtaining a discharge and being awarded $238,615.45 in attorney’s fees as allowable under the interpleader fee-shifting statute. However, in an earlier appeal, Currency was able to get the judgment reversed based on lack of authority by the arbitrator, with the interpled moneys being released to it. Currency then sought to recoup the $238,615.45 in fees already paid out of the interpled funds from Wertheim.
The lower court denied the fee reallocation request, a result affirmed by the 2/1 DCA. Although a shifting might have been in order, the lower court did not abuse its discretion by not reallocating fees to Wertheim; after all, Currency could have paid the judgment or posted an appeals bond given that Wertheim had a judgment before reversal so as to make the interpleader action unnecessary at all.