Here are the remaining December 31, 2012 intermediate DCA decisions on fees/costs issues,
Liens For Attorneys Fees: Timothy D. Reubon, Inc. v. One West Bank, Case No. B234958 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Dec. 31, 2012) (unpublished)
In this one, judgment creditor/former attorney obtained a judgment against judgment debtor/former client for past due services. However, judgment debtor client settled an independent indemnification claim against a related bankrupt entity by which the entity paid out money on the indemnification claim and paid off a lien by an outside bank on entity’s property. Judgment creditor was incensed, filing a motion against bank to have his judgment lien honored against bank for its payout. Both the trial and appellate courts found that judgment creditor attorney was not entitled to pursue the indemnification payment to judgment debtor because it was an independent claim, with judgment debtor abandoning a motion for fees--a recovery to which the attorney’s liens would have attached to except for the abandonment. No direct payment to the client.
Allocation/Reasonableness of Fees/Section 998: Nagaoka v. Ponce, Case No. G045562 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Dec. 31, 2012) (unpublished)
Plaintiff property owner won 1 of 3 claims (but a contractual claim) for a total of $5,680 against a contractor in a home improvement work dispute. Earlier, property owner had made a CCP § 998 offer for $10,000, having incurred preoffer attorney’s fees of $22,795 and preoffer costs of over $1,000. Even though property owner incurred total fees of $102,251 (yikes, for a $5,680 recovery), prevailing plaintiff did a smart thing in only asking for 1/3 of incurred fees amounting to $35,000 as well as $8,235.85 in costs. The trial court granted the entire requests, determinations affirmed on appeal in a 3-0 opinion authored by Justice Moore. No apportionment error was shown given the 2/3rds reduction, and plaintiff did beat the $10,000 998 offer once one-third of the preoffer awarded fees/costs were added to the $5,680 contractual award.
Appeal: Goodman v. Neutra, Case No. G046528 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Dec. 31, 2012) (unpublished)
Last but not least for 2012, property owners in this case obtained a $100,000 professional malpractice award against an architect, who himself obtained a $30,000 recovery on a contract cross-claim. The lower court decided that architect was the prevailing contractually-based party and awarded him fees and costs of $51,000. After deducting the various awards, interest and costs due to architect, a net judgment of $27,626.92 was owed to property owners, an amount paid off by architect. Property owners then appealed, but the appeal was dismissed. Reason? They had accepted the benefits of the judgment, and no equitable exceptions (compulsion or severability) applied under the circumstances. Presiding Justice O’Leary authored this one, and architect prevailed on appeal so that he could seek additional fees and costs
Blog Bonus: Dion Neutra, a modernist/International style American architect, is son of the famed architect Richard Neutra (1892-1070).
Comments