Deadlines: Motion To Void Fee Award One Year Later Was Untimely

 

Judgment Awarding Fees Was Not Void, So Attack Was Unsuccessful.

    In Francis v. Foxx, Case No. B256423 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Aug. 6, 2015) (unpublished), plaintiff tenants won $3,445 in a landlord dispute after a bench trial, but then were awarded $47,430 (out of a requested $70,000) in Civil Code section 1717 contractual fees under a lease provision.  (Goes to show you that fee awards do not have to be proportional to the compensatory damages recovery.)  Defendant landlord, over one year after the fee order, moved to vacate and set aside the order, arguing that it was a void judgment because fees were not warranted under section 1717.  The lower court disagreed.

    The appellate court agreed with the lower court’s denial of the motion to vacate/set aside.

    This case has an excellent discussion about the difference between a void versus an erroneous judgment for purposes of a collateral attack under CCP § 473(d).  In this situation, mistake of law is not a jurisdictional error and the lower court did have the power to enter an attorney’s fees order.  Landlord really argued that it was erroneous, but that does not provide a meritorious basis upon which to set it aside an order as void.  The motion was way too late, as was landlord’s challenge to the fee award.