Second District, Div. 4, Explains that Interlocutory Judgment Determing Interests of the Parties and Ordering Partition is Appealable – But Interlocutory Order Finding a Party Prevailed and Incurred Costs and Attorney’s Fees for the Common Benfit of the Parties is Not Appealable.
In Alaeddin Enayati v. Hessamedin Enayati, B213264 (2nd Dist., Div. 4 July 21, 2010) (unpublished) plaintiff, cross-defendant and respondent Alaeddin Enayati sought partition of property. The trial court found that Alaeddin was the prevailing party, and that he had incurred costs and attorney’s fees for the common benefit of the parties. The trial court did not rule on the amount of fees to which Alaeddin was entitled.
In a partition action, the trial court determines whether the party has the right to partition. If the court determines that the plaintiff is entitled to partition, it makes an interlocutory judgment determining the interests of the parties. This interlocutory judgment is appealable. Once the property is sold or divided, the trial court enters a final judgment.
On appeal, Hessamedin contended that it was improper to find, in an interlocutory order, that the services of Alaeddin’s attorney were for the common benefit, and the reasonable value of the services. “[A] finding in an interlocutory order that a party has incurred fees for the common benefit, by itself,” explained the Court of Appeal, “does not constitute a final determination that the party is entitled to a determinate fee award.” Presumably a fee award will be issued in connection with the final judgment in the partition action, and at that time, the fee award could be appealed. The 3-0 opinion was authored by Justice Manella.
Comments