Trial Judge’s Denial Of Fees Was Error, But He Protectively Decided Only 10% Of Winner’s Claimed Fees Were Reasonable—With The Appellate Court Modifying The Judgment To Award This Amount!
This next one is interesting to show how trial judges can “protectively” express what attorney’s fees should be even though denying the request. By doing so, the appellate court did not have to remand, but simply modify the judgment in line with the trial judge’s “advisory opinion.”
That is what happened in Jefferson Pointe Professional Center Property Owners Assn. v. Kriger, Case No. D075946 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Jan. 23, 2020) (unpublished). Ex-client sued his main attorney (since disbarred) and law partner for breach of contract and torts, with the ex-client obtaining a judgment against main attorney but getting defensed by his law partner. The trial judge denied an attorney’s fees request to the law partner, but he did indicate that he would only award $46,923—10% of the requested fees—had he granted the motion.
On appeal, the 4/1 DCA reversed the fee denial, finding the winning law partner did base his motion “on the contract” under Civil Code section 1717 after winning a summary adjudication on ex-client’s contractual claim. However, rather than remand, the appellate court found that the trial judge’s conclusion about the amount of fees was no abuse of discretion and modified the judgment to award fees in the amount of $46,923 to law partner.
Comments