Q: I am a partner in a partnership. Because of what I contend were misdeeds and mismanagement by the managing partner, I filed suit to dissolve the partnership and for damages. I immediately filed a motion to have a receiver appointed to run the partnership business and safeguard the partnership assets during litigation. Unfortunately, the judge denied my motion because she stated receiverships are harsh and costly remedies and that at such an early stage in the proceeding a receivership was premature. My partner has now filed a motion seeking attorney’s fees based on his defeating my motion. Can he do that? I thought each party is responsible for their own attorney’s fees.
A: Generally, you are correct. Under what is called the “American Rule,” each side in litigation is responsible for their own attorney’s fees. See Cargill, Inc. v. Souza, 201 Cal.App. 4th 962, 966 (2011). However, as with everything in life, there are exceptions. The major exception in California is Civil Code § 1717, which provides, in summary, in an action on a contract, which has an attorney’s fees clause in it, the court, on notice and motion, shall determine who is the prevailing party, whether or not suit proceeds to final judgment, and the prevailing party is entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees. Courts have “discretion in determining which party has prevailed on the contract, or that no party has.” Disputesuite.com LLC v. Scoreinc.com, 2 Cal. 5th 968, 973 (2017).
While, unfortunately, many motions to appoint receivers are denied, because courts may feel receiverships are costly and burdensome remedies, other remedies might be cheaper or more effective (i.e. injunctions), it is too early in the proceeding, or an insufficient basis has been shown (even where a contract provides a receivership remedy), we often don’t consider that there may be liability for bringing and losing a receivership motion. Depending on the underlying contract, however, there might be.
A recent unreported case involving a motion to appoint a receiver illustrates the potential liability. Levine v. Levine, 2019 WL 459967 (Cal.App. 2019), involves a brother and a sister who were co-trustees of their parents’ trusts. The trusts contained many assets, including income producing properties, some of which were co-owned with third parties. When Larry determined that his sister Leslie had withdrawn $137,000 from one of the trusts, he filed a probate petition. Eventually they settled. The settlement agreement required Larry to take a number of actions administering the trusts, including filing an amended inventory, distributing gifts, and transferring and selling certain properties. Some of this required the properties to be appraised, so distributions could be equalized and so estate tax returns could be filed. After a while, Leslie filed a motion to enforce the settlement and appoint a receiver because, she contended, Larry was not doing what the settlement agreement required. Larry opposed the motion stating the settlement had not been breached and that the trust administration was proceeding according to probate custom and practice. In particular, the amount of estate tax could not be determined until all the properties were appraised, he didn’t know which properties to sell to pay estate taxes until he knew what the tax liability would be, and the tax returns weren’t due for another five months. The court’s initial tentative was to grant Leslie’s motion. However, the court deferred ruling based on the fact appraisers had been hired, had completed their inspections, and would be filing their reports in a few weeks. The court ordered Larry to proceed expeditiously and, if there were a hint of further delay, it would appoint a receiver. While there were further delays, the appraisals were eventually finished and the tax returns were filed. The court, at a continued hearing, therefore denied the receivership motion without prejudice. Larry then filed a motion for attorney’s fees of $74,349.00, based on a provision in the settlement agreement allowing attorney’s fees to the prevailing party in the event of a dispute arising from the agreement.
The court granted Larry’s motion. While the court acknowledged its tentative ruling was to grant Leslie’s motion, the court noted that appointing a receiver is a disfavored remedy and based on its “holistic review of the pleadings, and focusing on the relief requested and denied.” found Larry to be the prevailing party. The Court of Appeals affirmed, based on Civil Code § 1717 and the trial court’s discretion to determine who is the prevailing party. Movants, therefore, need to be circumspect in bringing receivership motions if the underlying contract has an attorney’s fees clause and the motion is based on breach of contract; which may often be the case in cases involving promissory note defaults (i.e., rents, issues and profits cases), and settlement or partnership agreement disputes.
One interesting practice note from the case involved the fees actually awarded by the court. Larry had requested $74,349.00. The court only awarded $25,412.00. This was due, in large part, because Larry redacted the bills supporting his motion, to avoid waiving the attorney- client privilege or revealing tactical decisions. While the court found the practice understandable and permitted and “likely required,” the result was the court couldn’t determine whether the redacted services related to the motion to enforce the settlement. Based on the court’s reduction, Larry filed a motion for reconsideration, where he waived the attorney-client privilege and resubmitted the bills with fewer redactions. The court denied the reconsideration motion, finding there was nothing new to consider since Larry always had the information. The Court of Appeals affirmed this, finding Larry’s decision to waive the privilege following the ruling did not constitute new or different evidence.
*Peter A. Davidson is a Senior Partner of Ervin Cohen & Jessup LLP a Beverly Hills Law Firm. His practice includes representing Receivers and acting as a Receiver in State and Federal Court.
- Senior Partner
Peter A. Davidson is a Senior Partner in the Bankruptcy, Receivership, and Creditors’ Rights Department.
Since 1977 Peter has represented receivers, plaintiffs and defendants in receivership actions in state and federal court ...
Subscribe
Recent Posts
- New Cal/OSHA Indoor Heat Standards Require New Prevention Measures and Written Prevention Plan | By: Joanne Warriner
- California Bans All Plastic Bags at Grocery Stores | By: Pooja S. Nair
- FTC’s Nationwide Ban on Non-Compete Agreements Stopped by Federal Court Ruling | By: Cate A. Veeneman
- Can the IRS Obtain a Receiver to Help Collect Taxes Owed? | By: Peter Davidson
- Severing Unconscionable Terms in Employment Arbitration Agreements | By: Jared W. Slater
- Can You Collaterally Attack a Receiver’s Appointment?
- Changes to PAGA Create Opportunities for Employers to Minimize Penalties | By: Tanner Hosfield
- Overbroad Employment Arbitration Agreements Will Not Be Enforced in California | By: Jared W. Slater
- LA Al Fresco Deadline Extended | By: Pooja S. Nair
- The Battle for Supremacy: Federal Arbitration Act v. California Arbitration Act | By: Jared W. Slater
Blogs
Contributors
Archives
- October 2024
- September 2024
- August 2024
- July 2024
- June 2024
- May 2024
- April 2024
- March 2024
- February 2024
- January 2024
- December 2023
- November 2023
- October 2023
- September 2023
- August 2023
- July 2023
- June 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- August 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014