Estoppel: Given That Prior Judgment Was Barred By Judicial Estoppel, Subsequent Fee Award Of $167,044 Based On Contractual Fees Clause Was Proper

“Law Of The Case” Doctrine Applied With Respect To Validity Of Prior Judgment.

            In Hume v. Hume, Case No. A161616 (1^st Dist., Div. 3 June 8, 2022) (unpublished), appellant tried to argue that a judgment was void even though, if it was valid, the judgment gave rise to fee exposure.  The trial court did not buy it, awarding the other side $167,044 in contractual attorney’s fees, with the adverse party not contesting the amount of the fees requested.  The Court of Appeal affirmed, largely on the “law of the case” doctrine which found the prior judgment proper based a judicial estoppel argument.  Once that occurred, the fee award was upheld given there was a contractual basis for fees and the other side did not contest the amount of requested fees.