Although Controlling the Litigation, Nonsignatory Had No Rights Assigned Under The Fees-Clause Bearing Settlement Agreement.
Estate of Bennett, Case Nos. G043050 et al. (4th Dist., Div. 3 Mar. 8, 2011) (unpublished), although a probate action, actually is a Civil Code section 1717 fees clause case, with the fee award affirmed by a 3-0 opinion authored by Justice Rylaarsdam. It also demonstrates that assignment of rights must be specific; if the fees clause is in a settlement agreement, make sure the specific settlement agreement rights are assigned.
Claimant was granted a $51,236.21 fee award against petitioners losing a motion to set aside an assignment of an interest in decedent’s estate to claimant, although claimant did not get the award extended to another party (Brea) allegedly assigned petitioners’ interest in certain probate litigation.
The Court of Appeal affirmed. The award against petitioners was justified based on a fees clause in a settlement agreement between claimant and petitioners. Brea (the other party), which was not a party to the settlement agreement, was properly not exposed to fees--even though it may have controlled the litigation--because it was not assigned any rights under the settlement agreement (just the probate litigation, which was not good enough).
Comments