Mobile Home Park Owner Entitled To Prevailing Party Fee Recovery For Obtaining Free And Clear Ownership After A Public Sale Of An Abandoned Lot Where Lease Fees Were Owed.
In this post, we summarize two lengthy fees/costs decisions arising under Civil Code section 798.85, the fees/costs shifting provision of the Mobilehome Residency Law (MRL). Both cases ultimately determined, after some prior appeal decisions, that a mobile home park owner seeking to quiet title to property acquired after a mobile home lot owner abandons the lot can obtain fees and costs because such quiet title efforts relate to the termination, abandonment, and public warehouse sales provisions of the MRL.
The first one, Canyon View Limited v. Nationstar Mortgage, Case No. B312642 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Oct. 26, 2023) (unpublished) involved a mobile home park owner who did recover possession of an abandoned lot, where lease fees were still delinquent, through a public sale which gave the interest in the lot “free and clear” of prior interests, including a loan against the lot. However, lender failed to remove certain documents which clouded title to the lot, prompting a quiet title action by park owner against the lender. Because this action was successful against lender, it arose out of the MRL. Park owner was awarded $470,338.23 in fees and $24,209.86 in costs after rejecting lender’s three § 998 offers which eventually agreed to the relief plus $70,000 in fees to park owner. The fees and costs orders were affirmed because (1) a “dividing line” by the defense for recoverability of fees was unreasonable, and (2) the 998 offers were not more favorable because pre-offer fees at the time exceeded the $70,000 ultimate offer (they were over $112,000 in amount).
The second one, Canyon View Limited v. Bank of America, N.A., Case No. B312259 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Oct. 26, 2023) (unpublished) concerned similar issues for differing parties, but with a lower court on remand from a prior appeal awarding fees under a “quarterling approach” (reducing certain fees by a quarter even though different actions were concerned and in one case there was no real concern with overbilling reductions). The appellate court found this approach too arbitrary, remanding with instructions to not use this approach but follow the lodestar methodology (although not hampering the trial judge from making reductions to arrive at a reasonable fee).
Comments