“Wash” Sentiment Of Lower Court Endorsed By Appellate Court On Review.
It’s a wash.
Louise Rosskam, photographer. July 1940. Library of Congress.
In Yee v. Richance HB, LLC, Case No. G049598 (4th Dist., Div. 3 June 29, 2015) (unpublished), plaintiff/cross-defendant and defendant/cross-complainant got into a real estate dispute over easement rights. The end result in the lower court was that plaintiff won on the claim that an easement was enforceable (creating a parking burden), but defendant prevailed on plaintiff’s claim for monetary damages. Faced with plaintiff seeking $610,298 in fees and defendant seeking $131,695.43 in attorney’s fees under a prior stipulated judgment easement settlement fees clause, the lower court declared it a “wash” and found neither side clearly prevailed so as to be entitled to fees.
The Fourth District, Division 3, in an opinion authored by Justice Moore, agreed. A detailed review of the record showed that easement preservation was not plaintiff’s only litigation objective, with damages being a main catalyst—and plaintiff did not obtain damages. The “no prevailing party” determination below was sustained on appeal.