California Civil Code Section 1717 Provides for Mutuality of Remedy in Favor of a Third Party Beneficiary

Posted on January 31, 2012 by David J. McMahon

In Cargill Inc. v. Souza, 2011 DJDAR 17680 (2011), the California Court of Appeal for the Fifth Appellate District decided a novel case relating to the attempt by a litigant’s attempt to enforce a fee clause in a contract against a purported third party beneficiary of the agreement.

The Teixeiras borrowed $1 million from the Souzas to buy cattle and farm equipment. The Teixeiras executed a promissory note (the “Note”) and a security agreement (the “Agreement”) in favor of the Souzas. The Note and the Agreement created a security interest on behalf of the Souzas in the cattle and farm equipment. In addition, the Teixeiras bought feed from Cargill Inc. The feed purchase resulted in a further unsecured indebtedness in favor of Cargill in the sum of $262,000.

The Teixeiras soon defaulted on the promissory notes.

They executed a Transfer Agreement (“Transfer Agreement”) with the Souzas. Under the Transfer Agreement, the Souzas agreed to pay the Teixeiras’ outstanding obligations listed on an exhibit to the Agreement. By omission, the exhibit was not completely filled out. The Transfer Agreement had a prevailing party fee clause indicating that the winner of any dispute arising under the Transfer Agreement would be entitled to reasonable attorney fees.

The bill for feed was never paid. Eventually, Cargill brought suit to collect the unpaid invoice. Cargill alleged that the Souzas failed to pay the Teixeiras’ obligation owed to Cargill for the unpaid feed bills. Cargill alleged that it was a third party beneficiary of the Transfer Agreement. The Souzas moved for summary judgment and the trial court granted the Souzas’ motion. The Souzas moved for attorney fees, but the trial court denied the motion.

The court of appeal reversed the decision of the trial court. The court of appeal noted that under Civil Code Section 1717 in an action on a contract, if a non‑party to the Agreement sues a signatory party and the signatory defendant prevails, the signatory defendant is entitled to attorney fees if the nonsignatory plaintiff would have been entitled to fees in the case had they won the litigation. 

Because Cargill was a third party beneficiary of the Transfer Agreement, and would have been entitled to fees if it had won, the court of appeal concluded that the Souzas were entitled to reasonable attorney fees as the prevailing party under the reciprocal provisions of Civil Code Section 1717.

 

Party Who Pursues Litigation to Enforce CC&Rs Needs to "Get Ducks in a Row" Prior to Suing

Posted on January 18, 2012 by David J. McMahon

In Salehi v. Surfside III Condominium Owners’ Association, 2011 DJDAR 16552 (2011), the California Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District decided a case illustrating the pitfalls of a plaintiff pursuing litigation without a strategic game plan. The end result was a fee award against the plaintiff for more than $252,767 in attorney fees.

The plaintiff purchased a condominium. The condominium community was governed by a set of covenants, conditions, and restrictions (“CC&Rs”). The CC&Rs were enforced by a condominium owners association (“the Association”).

In May 2008, the plaintiff filed suit against the Association, alleging numerous causes of actions for violation of the CC&Rs. Approximately one week before trial, the plaintiff informed the Association’s counsel that she was dismissing all but two of the causes of action.

The Association subsequently moved to recover $252,767 in attorney fees incurred in defending against the voluntarily dismissed causes of action pursuant to Civil Code Section 1354. The plaintiff responded to the motion for fees by contending that she only requested dismissal of the causes of action that required testimony from an expert. The expert allegedly was unavailable to testify at trial due to illness. The trial court denied the motion for attorney fees. The court found that under Civil Code Section 1354, the defendants were not a “prevailing party” within the meaning of the statute.

The court of appeal reversed the decision of the lower court. 

The court noted that pursuant to Civil Code Section 1354, in an action to enforce the governing documents of a common interest development, the “prevailing party” shall be awarded reasonable attorney fees and costs. The court of appeal specifically noted that the underlying record demonstrated that plaintiff’s case against the Association was tenuous. The court also stated that the record failed to establish that the plaintiff was prepared to prove the case substantively. The court of appeal concluded the trial court incorrectly denied the Association attorney fees and remanded the case for further proceedings.

"Of Counsel" Title Does Not Automatically Bar Claim for Attorney Fees

Posted on January 17, 2012 by David J. McMahon

In Dzwonkowski v. Spinella, 2011 DJDAR 16427 (2011), the California Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District decided an appeal relating to an award of attorney fees arising out of fee arbitration.

A client retained a law firm for representation in a probate matter. Another attorney who had the designation as “of counsel” at the law firm took over the matter when it proceeded into litigation.

The lawyer with the “of counsel” designation occasionally handled litigation matters on behalf of the firm. However, the “of counel” did not maintain a regular presence at the office. A dispute over the payment of attorney fees arose between the client and the law firm. An arbitration panel found in favor of the law firm. The fee award amounted to more than $33,000. The trial court confirmed the arbitration award. The law firm then filed a motion for $16,344 in attorney fees incurred in the arbitration proceeding and in related proceeding at the trial court level.

In the client’s opposition to the fee motion, he argued that the firm had not “incurred” attorney fees in connection with the representation, in part because the fees were incurred by the attorney with the “of counsel” title. The trial court rejected that argument and granted the motion for fees in its entirety.

The court of appeal affirmed that decision. The court of appeal noted that Civil Code Section 1717(a) states that in an action on a contract, if a contract provides for attorney fees incurred in enforcing the contract, the prevailing party is entitled to reasonable attorney fees. The court stated that:

Whether fees are incurred is evidenced by an obligation to pay attorney fees, the existence of an attorney‑client relationship, and distinct interests between the attorney and client.

The court of appeal noted that the record established that the firm was contractually obligated to pay the “of counsel” attorney fees incurred for his work on the case. The court of appeal also noted that the record established that the law firm actually retained the “of counsel” to provide services related to the fee dispute. Based in part on those conclusions, the court concluded the trial court’s award was proper.

Finding of Implied Waiver of Fees Contained in Marital Settlement Agreement Trumps Fee Claims

Posted on January 12, 2012 by David J. McMahon

In Marriage of Guilardi, 2011 DJDAR 16245 (2011), the California Court of Appeal for the Sixth Appellate District decided a fee petition related to so‑called pendente lite attorney fees. The fees were generated from the efforts of a party to set aside a marital settlement agreement (hereinafter the “MSA”).

A couple made the decision to separate and executed a MSA. The MSA addressed the division of money, property and custody of the husband and wife’s daughter.

After the MSA was negotiated, it was incorporated into a final judgment which was approved by the court. Subsequently, the wife moved to set aside the judgment and the MSA on numerous grounds, including the alleged non‑disclosure of key facts by the husband. The family court denied the motion, even though it concluded that the MSA was inequitable as applied to the wife’s financial situation. However, the court concluded that the mere fact that the MSA was not equitable was insufficient to invalidate the agreement in its entirety. The court was influenced by the fact that the wife had allegedly willingly entered into the MSA.

In subsequent proceedings, the wife sought attorney fees for the prosecution of her claims under the Family Code and for the fees attributable to the work concerning attacking the judgment of dissolution and the MSA. The trial court granted the husband’s motion to dismiss the claim for fees. The court found that there was an “implicit waiver” of the fee claim for statutory fees in the MSA.

The wife appealed the decision of the trial court and the court of appeal affirmed the decision of the trial court. The court of appeal noted that Family Code Section 2030 authorizes an award of pendente lite attorney fees to one party in a dissolution proceeding to the extent the award is “reasonably necessary” to compensate the party for maintaining the proceeding.

However, the court of appeal agreed with the trial court’s conclusion that the MSA contained an implicit waiver of any claims that either party might bring against the other arising out of the agreement. Accordingly, the court of appeal concluded that the family court properly granted the husband’s motion to dismiss the petition for attorney fees.