Undertaking: Attorney’s Fees/Costs Award Pending For Determination On Appeal Does Not Need To Be Bonded After Satisfaction of Prior Compensatory Parts

 

4/3 DCA Weighs In—Going With Ziello On The Issue, But Inviting Legislative Reform.

 

    Quiles v. Parent, Case No. G054353 (4^th Dist., Div. 3 Mar. 27, 2017) (published), a by-the-court decision through a panel consisting of Presiding Justice O'Leary, Justice Fybel, and Justice Ikola, considered this question: Does a litigant need to bond an unsatisfied amount of attorney's fees and costs during appeal even though the litigant satisfied the damages award leaving only the fees/costs award at issue? Answer: No, such that judgment enforcement efforts on the fees/costs award were stayed on appeal.

 

    In reaching this answer, the 4/3 panel relied heavily on the reasoning in Ziello v. Superior Court, 75 Cal.App.4^th 651 even though finding that its reasoning was "brief and unsatisfying."

 

    After steering through lots of statutory provisions and prior case law, the appellate court relied on the 1993 amendments to Code of Civil Procedure section 917(d). However, in footnote 8, it did invite the Legislature to add a new section requiring fee awards to be bonded or requiring an undertaking for costs in excess of a fixed amount.