Judge: Stephen P. Pfahler, Case: 21STCV38371, Date: 2024-02-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV38371    Hearing Date: February 2, 2024    Dept: 68

Dept. 68

Date: 2-2-24

Case # 21STCV38371

Trial Date: N/A

ATTORNEY FEES

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff, Leanor Leanos

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant, Robert Bolanos

RELIEF REQUESTED

Motion for Attorney Fees

SUMMARY OF ACTION

On October 18, 2021, plaintiff Leanor Leanos filed a complaint for Partition and Accounting, Declaratory Relief, and Breach of Warranty of Title and Quiet Enjoyment against Robert Bolanos. On November 16, 2021, Bolanos filed a cross-complaint against Leanos for Partition on Real Property, Accounting/Unjust Enrichment, Quiet Title, and Declaratory Relief.

On October 31, 2023, during the bench trial, the court dismissed all unnamed defendants, and entered the stipulation of the parties for partition of the property. On November 17, 2023, the court entered judgment for partition, which also included an additional damages award of $34,650 to Plaintiff. On December 5, 2023, Plaintiff filed a memorandum of costs.

RULING: Denied.

Plaintiff Leanor Leanos moves for $27,615 in attorney fees, as the prevailing party in the action, and for the common benefit of the partition action. Defendant Robert Bolanos in opposition maintains that the recovery of fees are partitioned as to the respective benefits of each party. Thus, the 50-50 split of the property renders the individuals responsible for their respective costs. Plaintiff in reply counters that the fee request is justified due to Defendant forcing Plaintiff to prosecute the action until the eve of trial, even after an offer to waive any attorney fee claim five (5) days before the trial date.

It remains undisputed the partition action provided a “common benefit” to all parties. The Code of Civil Procedure provides for the recovery of partition costs, which includes: “Reasonable attorney's fees incurred or paid by a party for the common benefit.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 874.010, subd. (a).) Apportionment of fees should be accorded by ownership interests. (Stutz v. Davis (1981) 122 Cal.App.3d 1, 4–5.) “(a) The costs of partition as apportioned by the court may be ordered paid in whole or in part prior to judgment. (b) Any costs that remain unpaid shall be included and specified in the judgment.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 874.110.) Fees are subject to the discretion of the court. (Orien v. Lutz (2017) 16 Cal.App.5th 957, 967–968; see Capuccio v. Caire (1932) 215 Cal. 518, 529-530.)

The court finds a lack of support for the imposition of attorney fees in the subject action. As acknowledged in the opposition, the court cannot consider the circumstances of any settlement discussions for purposes of determining an agreement for the recovery of fees. (Evid. Code, §1152.) Section four (4) of the judgment itself provides the only reference to potential of recovery of fees and costs in connection with the damages award. The court respects the frustration caused by the dispute leading up to the trial, but again no language of the judgment or other pre-order supports the award of additional, separate attorney fees. (Orien v. Lutz, supra, 16 Cal.App.5th 957, 967–968 [Resistance to partition in no way undermines the common benefit analysis applicable to the determination of legal fees].) Again, the law requires a prorated split of fees by ownership—in this case, an equal split. The motion lacks establishment for recovery beyond the equitable principles underlying a common benefit partition action. An award of fees contrary to the prevailing standard and based on consideration of privileged information would constitute an abuse of discretion. (Finney v. Gomez (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 527, 548; Stutz v. Davis, supra, 122 Cal.App.3d at pp. 4–5.)

The motion is denied.

Moving parties to give notice.