Where One Side Wanted Exclusive Parking Easement And Other Side Wanted Termination Of Easement/Tort Damages, Trial Court’s Decision To Share Parking Was A True “Lose-Lose” Case For Everyone.
One of our leading cases, Hsu v. Abbara, 9 Cal.4th 863 (1995), is must reading and the blueprint for the decision to affirm a trial court’s decision to award no fees to either side as a prevailing party under a contractual fees clause (Civ. Code, § 1717).
In AHZ Co. v. Sharp Healthcare, Case Nos. D075975/D076362 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Dec. 29, 2020) (unpublished), corporate neighbors got involved in contentious litigation over parking spaces—not uncommon, given the necessity for this in many commercial and retail businesses. One side claimed that it had an exclusive use of parking spaces, while the other claimed that the parking easement was terminated and was entitled to millions in tort damages. In the end, the trial judge found that the warring parties had to share the pertinent parking spaces. The trial judge also decided that no side prevailed, because it was a “lose-lose” case.
That determination held up on appeal. Utilizing the Hsu “blueprint,” no one got a clear victory, such that a prevailing party decision was a discretionary one for the trial judge. Given that both sides went nuclear but were ultimately held to share the use of spaces (not consistent with the relief either wanted), the “lose-lose case” assessment resonated with the reviewing court. No attorney’s fees awarded here.
Comments