Case Just As Importantly Illustrates Importance Of Fees/Costs Exposure—Plaintiff Won Only $1,002, But Was Awarded $121,125 In Fees And $7,842.26 In Costs Under Davis-Stirling Act.
Rivera v. 4 Streets Co-Op of Rte. 2, Inc., Case No. B281866 (2d Dist., Div. 2 Apr. 26, 2018) (unpublished) has some post-judgment enforcement lessons, but just as equally illustrates how a statute with fees/costs-shifting features can present liability way beyond just a compensatory jury verdict.
In this one, plaintiff won a jury verdict of $1,002 against defendant co-op over the co-op board’s election, but the trial judge then awarded plaintiff $121,125 in fees and $7,842.26 in costs under a Davis-Stirling Act statutory provision. (Yikes!) Even more interest and post-judgment enforcement fees were added on, and some were paid along the way. Co-op thought that it had reached a satisfaction of judgment because plaintiff’s sister (who became his successor because plaintiff died after entry of judgment) accepted a check and signed an Acknowledgment of Satisfaction of Judgment. However, both the trial and appellate courts determined that there had been no satisfaction because (1) nothing showed Natalie cashed versus merely accepting the check, and (2) Natalie’s testimony showed she was confused in signing the Acknowledgment of Satisfaction such that there was no intent to reach a satisfaction under the circumstances.