Various Statutes Gave Rise To Fee Entitlement In The Probate Case.
One of our readers, Ronald Foreman of San Francisco’s Foreman & Brasso, sent us some interesting fee opinions in the Marin County Superior Court case of Matter of the Gregory Joseph Schoepp Living Trust, Case No. PR000248 [12/6/24 lis pendens expungement fee order and 3/9/26 prevailing party fees/costs order].
Petitioner in a probate case recorded a lis pendens and brought an 850 petition based on undue influence, wrongful taking, and non-contract claims. Mr. Foreman and Ian Hansen of the Foreman firm defended on behalf of two respondents. First, respondent Zmoonos, LLC obtained a lis pendens expungement order based on the merits, with the lower court awarding $24,934.58 in attorney’s fees allowable under CCP § 405.38—even though ordering Zmoonos to file supplemental papers to support a lodestar award (which was done, and successful). Second, respondents prevailed in the action when the petition was voluntarily dismissed, with fees authorized under CCP § 1032(a)(4) and Probate Code section 1002 [but with the lower court having to make a nuanced determination of what side prevailed under section 1002]. The lower court determined that the 805 petition alleged non-contractual claims such that Santisas did not bar fee recovery. There were broad fee clauses in the lease and deed of trust which provided for fee entitlement to respondents, with the lower court determining that respondents prevailed because they had to contest various meritless events in the case. The lower court proceeded to award $535,347.50 in fees and $30,695.71 in routine costs.
HAT TIP—Thanks to Messrs. Foreman and Hansen for these lower court rulings, and congratulations to your team on obtaining the orders.