Apex LLC v. Sharing World, Inc., Case No. G045321 (4th Dist., Div. 3 May 31, 2012; Posted June 5, 2012) (published).
Justice Fybel, on behalf of a 3-0 panel of our local appellate court, reversed bench trial results in an opinion involving many UCC issues, such as gap fillers for contract formation, confirmation in writing, inconsistency under section 2202, reasonable resell efforts, and section 2706 damages. (Takes us back to law school, doesn’t it?) For our purposes, after initially denying winner fees, the trial court eventually granted $107,560 in fees. However, with the reversal of the underlying judgment, the fee award, too, went POOF!
Marriage of Johnson, Case No. B232819 (2d Dist., Div. 8 June 5, 2012) (unpublished).
In this one, husband was hit with 2030 needs based fees of $40,000 and 271 sanctions of $50,000, but with the court order providing that husband’s payment of the $50,000 sanctions award would satisfy his obligation to pay the $40,000 fee-shifting award. Husband’s appeal was unsuccessful. After all, the lower court correctly drew an adverse inference against him given proof that he was untruthful about his income by understating the personal expenses his law firm paid for him. Also, he did have the financial wherewithal to pay the award, with the lower court merely finding he was living beyond his means rather than he lacked the ability to pay the sanctions award--a reduction in his lifestyle seemed to suggest he had the ability to pay off the award.