Freeman v. Vista de Santa Barbara Associates, Case No, B232845 (2d Dist., Div. 6 Sept. 26, 2012) (Unpublished)
In this case, plaintiff prevailed in a Mobilehome Residency Law (MRL) action about rental control where $12,934 in damages were won. She made a motion for attorney’s fees under a mandatory MRL fee-shifting clause (Civ. Code, § 798.85) and a lease fees clause. The trial court awarded $50,000 out of $105,322.50 in requested fees. The fee award was affirmed. The defense argument that exorbitant fees means all fees must be denied was summarily dismissed, because a trial court always has the ability to reduce a fee request--as was done here. Losing defendant also argued that no fees could be awarded under section 798.85 because the mobilehome was not plaintiff’s main residence, but the problem with that is the statute does not contain any caveat that fees should be reduced if the mobilehome is a secondary residence.
Pappas v. Farr, Case No. B237030 (2d Dist., Div. 6 Sept. 26, 2012) (Unpublished)
We have reported on this election contest imbroglio in the past. (See our past posts of December 22, 2010, August 18, 2011, and November 7, 2011) Looks like, in the recent appellate decision (if no further review is sought from the state supreme court), that the dispute is finally over -- and, of course, it involves attorney’s fees. Losing candidate in a supervisorial election contest filed an action against successful candidate, but winning candidate was denied fees under the private attorney general statute, CCP § 1021.5. However, the fee denial was reversed in an earlier decision by the 2/6 appellate court. On remand, the trial court awarded the winning candidate in the election contest $528,627.50 in fees under section 1021.5. Fee loser was not successful in this appeal. He argued that the fees should be reduced based on winner’s pecuniary interest, but the flaw was that he made no showing winner’s financial interest was not eclipsed by the costs of the suit versus amortized salary reduced by taxes and other burdens. The lower court was also correct in disregarding nonpecuniary interest under Whitley [one of our Leading Cases]. Finally, the argument was made that a huge amount had to be reduced due to block billing, but the appellate court only found this persuasive where block billing prevented apportionment or intelligent fee decisionmaking, hardly the case in Pappas. Fee award affirmed this time around.
Comments