Buyer Failed To Meet Its Burden Of Rebutting Seller’s Showing Of Entitlement And Reasonableness Of Fees With Supporting Rebuttal Evidence.
In Kim v. PCP-Sundance, Case Nos. D076510/D076799 (4th Dist., Div. 1 January 11, 2021) (unpublished), buyer of a mobile home park sued sellers for $1,754,428.50 for breach of the parties’ Special Indemnity Agreement (SIA) under which the sellers agreed to provide certain concessions to buyer in order to complete the sale. Pursuant to the SIA, the parties agreed to arbitrate their dispute, and sellers conceded to owing buyer $3,396.25 for eviction-related expenses for three tenants who were in arrears at the close of escrow. The arbitrator awarded buyer the $3,396.25, but found the remainder of buyer’s claims to be outside the scope of the SIA. The Arbitrator also determined sellers were the prevailing parties as they had prevailed on all of the disputed issues – awarding sellers $78,236.43 in fees/costs, pursuant to the fees provision in the SIA, with an offset of the $3,396.25 sellers owed buyer for a net recovery to sellers of $74,840.18.
After sellers successfully petitioned the trial court to confirm the arbitration award, and defeated buyer’s separate petition to vacate or correct the award, sellers moved for $32,918.50 in attorney fees and $2,120.51 in costs – with the trial court awarding seller $28,086 in fees and $2,069.36 in costs after a $4,832.50 reduction for some excessive work and for the attendance of two attorneys instead of one at the hearing on the petitions.
Buyer appealed, but its arguments – that trial court’s award of fees/costs was “grossly excessive,” and that most of the fees sellers sought were directly related to the arbitration case rather than the judicial proceedings to confirm, correct or vacate the arbitration award – were of no avail. The 4/1 DCA found no abuse of discretion. First, sellers met their burden by establishing their entitlement to the fees/costs, and supported their motions with attorney declarations establishing the work performed and billing rates, memoranda of costs, and copies of the relevant billing records. Buyer, however, failed to meet its burden to rebut sellers’ showing with evidence – failing to support its arguments by addressing/objecting to any specific billing entries.
Comments