Legal Opinion

Lee v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA

California Court of Appeal

Decided May 8, 2001No. B143859PublishedCited by 17 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

CURRY, J.

This appeal is from an order awarding attorney fees and costs to respondent Warren Lee. Lee’s original request for fees and costs was denied by the trial court as untimely. Almost six months after the court’s order was entered, Lee sought relief under section 473 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereafter section 473), which was granted. Appellant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (hereafter Wells Fargo) contends that the request for relief was itself untimely. Well Fargo maintains that the request should have been brought within six months of the date Wells Fargo raised the untimeliness…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. Pollard v. Saxe & Yolles Dev. Co.California Supreme Court · 1974
  2. Bankes v. LucasCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1992
  3. Carboni v. ArrospideCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1991
  4. Freeman v. GoldbergCalifornia Supreme Court · 1961
  5. Union Collection Co. v. OliverCalifornia Supreme Court · 1912

12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by17 opinions

  1. Henderson v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co.California Court of Appeal · 2010
  2. Wozniak v. LUCUTZCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2002
  3. Huh v. WangCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2007
  4. Conness v. SatramCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2004
  5. HUH v. WangCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2008

12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API