Narrow Breadth Of The Lease Fee Shifting Provision Sealed The Result.
The 2/2 DCA in Vaughn v. Darwish, Case Nos. B296693/B305132 (2d Dist., Div. 2 Nov. 12, 2020) (unpublished), did express introductory exasperation about the length of the landlord/tenants’ dispute – going back to 2010, which generated 8 lawsuits, 8 appeals, and 5 writ proceedings. (When an appellate court starts out this way, it is signaling that the time is drawing near to end the dispute.) Landlord prevailed in a malicious prosecution action brought in response to an earlier unlawful detainer action by certain tenants, but landlord was denied contractual attorney’s fees—prompting landlord to appeal.
The fee denial was affirmed. The reason was that the scope of the fee clause was narrow, applying to these six categories: recovery of moneys due under the lease; breach of lease covenants; recovery of possession for the leased premises; compelling performance of lease obligations; recovery of damages to the lease property; and enjoining acts contrary to the lease obligations. A malicious prosecution action did not fall within the ambit of these six categories, such that the denial was correct. “What is more, the fact that the unlawful detainer actions were the singularity from which this universe of litigation has exploded does not render all subsequent litigation subject to the attorney fees clauses in the leases when that litigation is outside the plain language of those clauses.” (Slip Op., at p. 29.)
Comments