Trial Court Discretion Is Broad on this Issue.
Viney v. Grupp, Case Nos. A120208/120993 (1st Dist., Div. 4 Oct. 19, 2011) (unpublished) is a convoluted real property easement interference case–involving landlocked property–where one $240,000 fee award went POOF! based on a partial reversal of a damages issue (and appellate instructions that there might be entitlement and no need to apportion with respect to the other side’s gripe about not getting any fees should they win below on remand) and where another fee of award of under $168,000 was affirmed based on a settlement agreement fee clause.
The real lesson we took away from this case involved the prevailing party who won the $168,000 fee award. He appealed the trial court’s reductions of about $68,000 from the requested fees, primarily for the second attorney who affiliated into the case close to trial. The trial court found that second counsel was not needed and did not improve the client’s representation, with the appellate court finding that this was no abuse of discretion given the broad discretion imbued with the lower court to make such a determination.