Trial Judge Did Not Abuse Discretion In Not Awarding Litigation Costs Where Ultimate Win Was Minor In Nature In Unlimited Civil Case.
All litigation practitioners should be attuned to the next case, Van Taylor v. Ivie, Case No. B281545 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Jan. 26, 2021) (unpublished), where litigation costs are claimed in an unlimited case where your client won much less than the $25,000 jurisdictional amount.
In this one, neighbors had a 20-year dispute over a narrow strip of land and block wall between their homes. After 3 trials (some before a jury and some before a court) and seven appeals, one side received a jury award of $2,000 in damages on trespass/nuisance claims, with the trial judge also awarding some permanent injunctive relief where one side had to remove certain items on a wall between the two properties. We can only imagine the attorney’s fees spent on this fiasco, but the winning side was denied normal litigation costs (much less than fees), prompting an appeal on the narrow costs issue.
The 2/3 DCA affirmed the costs denial. When a monetary award is below the $25,000 unlimited case threshold, the lower court has discretion to deny costs under CCP §1033(a). Where a party obtains equitable relief, the lower court has the same discretion as far as awarding or denying costs under CCP §1032(a)(4). Because the trial judge did weigh which side actually achieved their litigation objectives as compared to the contested claims (deciding no one clearly prevailed), it was no abuse of discretion for the trial judge to deny costs to the “winning” side.
Comments