Beverly Hills Properties v. Marcolino
Appellate Division of the Superior Court of California
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
ROBERSON, J.
This appeal is a challenge to an order in an unlawful detainer case requiring appellant to pay legal fees to respondent, the prevailing party, pursuant to Civil Code section 1717.1 Appellant contends it should not be required to pay the fees because respondent did not actually incur them. Appellant also claims that if the legal fees are available under section 1717, the court erred in awarding them to respondent’s trial counsel, rather than to respondent.
I
Appellant, a landlord, filed an unlawful detainer action against respondent, its tenant, when respondent failed to pay…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Moyer v. Workmen's Compensation Appeals BoardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1973
- Reynolds Metals Co. v. AlpersonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1979
- Consumers Lobby Against Monopolies v. Public Utilities CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1979
- International Industries, Inc. v. OlenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1978
- Coast Bank v. HolmesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1971
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by22 opinions
- PLCM Group, Inc. v. DrexlerCalifornia Supreme Court · 2000
- Lolley v. CampbellCalifornia Supreme Court · 2002
- Persson v. Smart Inventions, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2005
- Gilbert v. Master Washer & Stamping Co.California Court of Appeal · 2001
- Mitchell Land & Improvement Co. v. Ristorante Ferrantelli, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2007
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.