Fees Were Reasonable, Plaintiffs Were Successful, And No Apportionment Required.
Neighbors, which happens more frequently than one might suppose, got into a dispute over a negative easement involving an excavation ban within 10 feet of the base of certain trees along their shared property, with the dispute based upon a settlement agreement in Biggs v. Tekin, Case No. E066224 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Jan. 19, 2018) (unpublished). That agreement had the following fees clause: “Each Party hereto agrees that in the event of any dispute concerning this Agreement or claims, demands, liabilities or causes of action included within its scope the Prevailing Party shall be entitled to recover its attorneys[’] fees and costs. The Prevailing Party shall be the Party entitled to recover his/her costs of suit, whether or not the suit proceeds to final judgment. No sum for attorneys’ fees shall be counted in calculating the amount of a judgment for purposes of determining whether a Party is entitled to recover his/her costs or attorneys’ fees.”
Plaintiffs sued defendants for breach of the settlement agreement, nuisance, and injunctive relief, with plaintiffs eventually obtaining $5,159.77, no permanent injunction, costs of suit, and a declaration that they were entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees following a one-day bench trial. Plaintiffs sought to recovery $32,133.50 for about 168 hours of attorney and paralegal work, and the trial judge awarded every penny of the request—prompting an appeal by defendants.
The defense arguments did not change the result.
Defendants first argued that the plaintiffs should have proceeded via a CCP § 664.6 motion rather than taking the case to trial. However, the appellate court believed that the expenses to prosecute the dispute through section 664.6 might have been around the same given declarations, discovery, motion drafting, and court appearances.
They next contended that plaintiffs did not really prevail because they had obtained a compensatory award much less than damages requested earlier in the litigation. However, because the trial court could conclude plaintiffs’ counsel was successful, there was no abuse of discretion in finding fee entitlement based on the fees clause.
The final salvo was that the trial court erred in not apportioning fees between contract and non-contract claims. The problem here was that the fees clause mentioned “any dispute,” which has been interpreted to include contract and non-contract causes of action such that no apportionment was necessary. (Maynard v. BTI Group, Inc., 216 Cal.App.4th 984, 993 (2013); Silver v. Boatwright Home Inspection, Inc., 97 Cal.App.h4th 443, 449 (2002).)
Comments