California
Appeals
Standard of Review
Attorney Fee Award
 

Standard of Review Attorney Fee Award

  2.         The Fee Award Against the Churchill Should Be Reversed

            The Ritters asked for much at trial, but obtained little.  They sued both The Churchill and the directors, alleging damages of $200,000 for the diminished value of their units while seeking an injunction requiring the defendants to spend potentially hundreds of thousands more to repair the slab penetrations in not just their unit but in every condominium in the complex.  All they got was their own unit repaired at a cost of a few thousand dollars, a vote of the other unit owners refusing to fund the repairs of the other units, and relief from the fines imposed by the Churchill for failing to make their own repairs.  All five directors were exonerated of liability while the Ritters were found to be 25 percent at fault for the events leading to this action.  Despite this, the Ritters were found to be the prevailing parties and were awarded virtually all of their requested attorney’s fees, totaling more than $531,000.[19]

            Given these obviously mixed results, I believe the trial court abused its discretion and should have determined there were no prevailing parties on the Ritters’ complaint.  (See Deane Gardenhome Assn. v. Denktas (1993) 13 Cal.App.4th 1394, 1398 [determination of no prevailing party typically results when the ostensibly prevailing party receives only part of the relief sought].)  Alternatively, I would reverse the fee award because the Ritters’ limited victory made an award of the full amount unreasonably high.  (PLCM Group, Inc. v. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1084, 1095-1096 [lodestar determination of attorney’s fees may be reduced for several factors, including the success or failure of the prevailing party’s case]; In re Gorina (Bankr. C.D.Cal. 2002) 296 B.R. 23, 32-33 [awarding prevailing party full amount unreasonable under California law when losing party defeated six of seven causes of action].)  The amount of attorney’s fees spent on this matter was appalling.  Awarding the full amount of attorney’s fees rewards the recklessness of the attorneys’ unbridled advocacy.  What should have been a manageable dispute to be resolved, perhaps, by a one or two day arbitration without significant discovery turned into a brakeless locomotive that crashed and destroyed most, if not all, the benefits achieved in this unfortunate litigation.
Ritter & Ritter v. Churchill Cond. Assn. 7/22/08 CA2/8

See Majority Opinion
Standard of Review Attorney Fee Award-Ritter & Ritter v Churchill Cond Assn

eBook Master Table of Contents   
Standard of Review-Table of Contents