Good Cause Was Shown For Allowing Fee Motion To Be Considered After Deadline, With Broad Fees Clause Encompassing Contractual Duties Even If Statutory Duties Were Not Encompassed.
Price v. Gullan, Case No. D075332 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Oct. 21, 2020) (unpublished) was a very contentious case involving a defective yacht purchase dispute where the purchaser ultimately won damages/fees against yacht sellers but failed to obtain any relief against the dual broker in the transaction. Broker then moved for costs and attorney’s fees of $440,198.45, with real storms arising on whether the fees motion was timely filed based on the judgment “trigger point” and on whether there was legitimate fee entitlement. The lower court did award the requested routine costs and $150,000 in attorney’s fees to broker.
Purchaser’s appeal of the fees award in favor of broker was unsuccessful.
Although the legal discussion was somewhat convoluted, the time to appeal was triggered from the original judgment given that it only allowed costs but did adjudge the fee entitlement issue. However, the deadline to file the fees motion can be extended for good cause—and that standard was met given a lot of confusion on the procedural history of what occurred. The appellate court, here, did have a nice discussion on how trial courts have inherent power to grant a costs and/or fees request that does not strictly comply with statutory requirements. With respect to the merits, the broad “arising out of or relating to this Agreement” language did encompass broker’s actions as a matter of contract, setting aside whether the conduct violated statutory actions outside the scope of the fees contract. So, in the end, broker’s fees award was affirmed on appeal.
Comments