Two Releases Much Narrower in Scope; Broader Release Could Not Be Interpreted to Encompass Fee Order Emanating From Earlier Purchase Agreement.
Scope of releases and timing is everything, as the next case–Barnard Enterprises, Inc. v. American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc., Case No. B246070 (2d Dist., Div. 2 Nov. 25, 2013) (unpublished)–demonstrates.
There, a purchaser under a 2010 real estate contract with a fees clause sued sellers and brokers on various theories, with the suit ultimately being resolved upon successful defense demurrers. Prevailing sellers then filed a motion against purchaser for attorneys fees in the amount of $87,959.50, which request was granted in entirety and which inspired an appeal by seller.
Purchaser banked on three releases contained in separate addendums to the real estate contract, with both the lower and appellate courts determining they did not impact the fee award.
Two of the addenda were too narrow in scope: one applied only between buyer-brokers (not sellers) and another only related to the condition of the property. However, there was a third 2012 addendum with broad release language, but both courts concluded that it could not be interpreted to encompass a judgment awarding fees under the 2010 purchase agreement.