Lower Court Erred In Refusing To Award Fees Under Fees Clause Which Encompassed Landlord’s Declaratory Relief Claim.
Earlier, tenant had won both trial and appellate court victories on the theory that landlord’s substantial rent increase violated local L.A. rent control ordinances, with landlord instigating things primarily through a declaratory relief-oriented action which landlord lost. Then, the prevailing tenant moved to recover $16,594 based on an attorney’s fees clause in the lease, which provided unilateral recovery to landlord for failure to pay rent (keeping in mind Civil Code section 1717 makes unilateral provisions reciprocal in nature). The trial court denied fee recovery to tenant, based on its perception that the fee clause was not applicable to the dispute.
That fee denial got reversed in Burien, LLC v. Wiley, Case No. B253555 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Mar. 23, 2015) (unpublished)—with the appellate court determining the fees clause was applicable.
Landlord argued that tenant could not obtain fees because the lease was not attached to the complaint or introduced at trial. No, because the lease fees clause was put at issue in the answer and can be introduced in the fee petition—no due process violation occurred at all. But that brought the appellate panel to the key issue, which was landlord’s declaratory relief action “on a contract” under Civil Code section 1717? Answer: You betcha. Beyond that, the secondary key question was whether the fees clause was broad enough to include the declaratory relief claim? Second answer: You betcha again. Reversed, with tenant being able to seek fees at the trial level and at the appellate level as prevailing party.
Comments