Appellate Court Did Not Have To Address Fee Entitlement Under The Automobile Sales Finance Act.
This next case demonstrates how appellate courts do not have to address all fee entitlement issues advanced by a prevailing party if one fee entitlement basis can support fee recovery.
Plaintiff won an earlier appeal by which the superior court was directed to rescind an automobile retail installment sales contract based on the defendant car dealer’s failure to provide a copy of the sales contract in Spanish in violation of Civil Code section 1632. Plaintiff then moved to recover appellate fees as the prevailing party under both the Automobile Sales Finance Act and a contractual fees provision under Civil Code section 1717. The trial judge denied appellate fees to plaintiff.
Plaintiff appealed and won in Esparza v. Joe MacPherson Ford, Case No. G055699 (4th Dist., Div. 3 April 23, 2019) (unpublished). Because rescission is “on the contract” under section 1717 and a contract was indeed involved here, this required a reversal and determination of what appellate fees should be reasonably awarded to plaintiff. The 4/3 DCA, in a decision authored by Justice Thompson, did not have to reach fee entitlement under the Automobile Sales Finance Act.