Weekly Law Resume - October 4, 2012: Attorney Fees – Court Must Make Determination of Amount as to Prevailing Party

by Low, Ball & Lynch

[author: James F. Regan]

Zintel Holdings, LLC v. Lilo McLean, et. al.
Court of Appeal, Second District September 18, 2012

When determining whether to award attorneys’ fees pursuant to Civil Code Section 1717, trial courts have broad discretion to determine who is a prevailing party or if there is a prevailing party. This case considered whether there had been an abuse of discretion where two defendants had unity of interest (to a point), but where only one filed a cross-complaint for additional damages outside the scope of the complaint.”

Zintel Holdings, LLC (“Zintel”) sued Lilo McLean (“McLean”) and her son, Mark Huth (Huth), to invalidate or equitably reform their allegedly fraudulent residential apartment lease. McLean and Huth were 50 year tenants in a Beverly Hills apartment building owned by Zintel. In 2010, Zintel served them with a 60-day notice to quit. The notices were later withdrawn but Zintel then sued, alleging the lease violated the statute of frauds, was executed without the Owner’s authorization and had been fraudulently backdated. McLean cross-complained, alleging causes of action for breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment, elder abuse and intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress. The lease contained an attorney fee provision, in the event an action was brought involving the lease.

Each party filed a motion for summary judgment and the court granted each side’s motions. McLean and Huth requested an award to them of costs and recovery of their reasonable attorney fees. The Court entered judgment and awarded costs of approximately $2,500 to McLean and Huth pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1032 (section 1032), but concluded there was no prevailing party under Code of Civil Procedure section 1717 (section 1717) and declined to award them attorney fees. McLean and Huth appealed from the judgment only with respect to the denial of attorney fees.

The Court affirmed as to McLean, but reversed as to Huth. Both Zintel’s complaint, and McLean’s cross-complaint involved claims expressly based on the lease agreement. There was no absolute or complete winner between those two litigants. Accordingly, the court was obligated to determine whether there was a prevailing party under section 1717: “[I]n deciding whether there is a ‘party prevailing on the contract,’ the trial court is to compare the relief awarded on the contract claim or claims with the parties’ demands on those same claims and their litigation objectives as disclosed by the pleadings, trial briefs, opening statements, and similar sources. The prevailing party determination is to be made only upon final resolution of the contract claims and only by ‘a comparison of the extent to which each party ha[s] succeeded and failed to succeed in its contentions.’” (Hsu v. Abbara (1995), 9 Cal.4th 863, 876.) Where neither party achieves a complete victory, the trial court has discretion to determine “which party prevailed on the contract or whether, on balance, neither party prevailed sufficiently to justify an award of attorney fees.” (Scott Co. v. Blount, Inc. (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1103, 1109.) If the court concludes that the defendant’s cross-action against the plaintiff was essentially defensive in nature, it may properly find the defendant to be the party prevailing on the contract”.) McLean’s cross-complaint sought monetary damages unrelated to the complaint, expanded discovery and led to substantial briefing. Given the nature of the cross-complaint and the affirmative relief it sought and the mixed results obtained by McLean in the litigation, the Court found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining McLean was not a prevailing party.

The Court agreed with Hugh’s contention that his complete defeat of Zintel’s complaint entitled him to a prevailing party designation. It found the trial court had no discretion to determine he was not the prevailing party and deny his request for attorney fees based on “the unity of interest” between him and his mother. Hugh was the prevailing party under section 1032. Because the award of costs to Huth under section 1032 was mandatory, the trial court had no discretion to deny his request for attorney fees under the terms of the parties’ lease agreement. Unlike McLean, Huth was necessarily the prevailing party under section 1717, subdivision (b)(1): “[W]hen the results of the litigation on the contract claims are not mixed—that is, when the decision on the litigated contract claims is purely good news for one party and bad news for the other …a trial court has no discretion to deny attorney fees to the successful litigant.” (Hsu, supra, 9 Cal.4th at pp. 875-876.). The Court found that the trial court had broad discretion to apportion fees, and that Huth may recover only reasonable attorney fees incurred in his defense of the action by Zintel.

The Court affirmed as to McLean, but reversed as to Huth and remanded for a determination of the reasonable attorney fees to which Huth is entitled.


The Court ruling ensures that even when there may be a unity of interest among parties, where a contract allows for attorney fees, a court must exercise its discretion and award attorney fees to a prevailing party.

Written by:

Low, Ball & Lynch

Low, Ball & Lynch on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.


JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at info@jdsupra.com. In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: info@jdsupra.com.

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.