Given Merits Judgment Was Paid, Other Party Was Not Responsible For Fees.
The next case we post on, Carter v. Mike Thompson Recreational Vehicles, Case No. G058205 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Sept. 14, 2021) (unpublished), shows how care needs to be given to drafting settlement agreements as far as preserving attorney’s fees exposure to different defendants. Justice Bedsworth authored the 3-0 panel decision.
What occurred here is that manufacturer EHGNA and dealer Thompson entered into a settlement agreement for a lemon law dispute. Although both defendants were liable to fund the merits settlement, only ENGNA was liable for fees. That settlement was dispositive on appeal. EHGNA went into Canada receivership, such that plaintiff car owner shifted sites to Thompson as far as fee recovery. That did not work. Both the lower and appellate courts honored the settlement agreement entered into between the parties. Only EHGNA, not Thompson, was responsible for fees, with plaintiff agreeing to this allocation such that there was no unenforceable waiver of lemon law fees given the bargain between the parties.
Comments