CALIFORNIA FAMILY LAW
...Attorney Fees
......Prevailing Party Agreements (CC 1717)
.........Fees Not Appropriate
 18 Cards On This Topic:
  • Ds' successful assertion of an affirmative defense is not equal to bringing an action for purposes of recovering attorneys fees under prevailing party agreement; Ds could recover fees on alternate basis.
  • D successfully moving litigation to Florida does not make it a prevailing party entitled to attorney's fees under CC §1717.
  • The court may not consider the parties' settlement offers in determining the prevailing party.
  • When D admits it owes part of the claim, to be the prevailing party it must admit its debt and tender that amount before a contested trial.
  • Trial ct. erred in finding that plaintiff could collect attorneys fees under CC §1717 as the party prevailing on appeal when defendant was found to be the prevailing party by the trial ct.
  • Where tenant sued landlord for fraud claims only and not breach of lease, he could not collect attorneys fees upon lease's attorneys fees provision as a prevailing party under CC §1717.
  • Motions for prevailing party attorneys fees properly denied where neither party achieved its litigation objectives.
  • By its plain language, CC §1717 applies only when a contract specifically provides that attorneys fees shall be awarded to one party or the prevailing party.
  • Under CCP §581(e) court erred in not allowing plaintiff to voluntarily dismiss his case after parties rested at trial, but before closing arguments; CC §1717 prevailing party fees awarded to defendant in error.
  • Where neither party achieved a simple and unqualified victory in contract litigation, trial ct. did not abuse its discretion in finding no party was entitled to attorneys fees under CC §1717.
  • Attorney fees provisions in 2010 contract were not incorporated into earlier 2001 contract where contracts did not show a clear and unequivocal intention to incorporate each other; award of attorney fees reversed.
  • Where P recovered nothing against D, D was prevailing party as a matter of law.
  • Since a law firm and “of counsel” are a single, de facto firm, a law firm cannot recover attorney fees under a prevailing party clause when, as a successful litigant, it is represented by “of counsel.”
  • P not entitled to atty fees as prevailing party after winning on D's appeal from denial of atty fees where D was overall prevailing party in the lawsuit.
  • Postjudgment award of atty fees reversed where parties' contract did not contain an attorney fee provision although losing party defended by championing different contract with atty fee provision.
  • Appellants were not "prevailing party" for purposes of CC 1717 atty fees award where underlying contract claims remain unresolved and they only had an interim procedural success.
  • Standard prevailing party attorney fee clause in legal retainer agreement does not encompass fees for legal malpractice claims.
  • Cases discussing prevailing party agreements.


    •