California Supreme And Appellate Court
Case Summaries
Attorney's Fees
 

ATTORNEY'S FEES
Attorney Fees Law Case Summaries

■ Garcia v. Santana, No. B206513

Appellants seek review of the trial court’s determination to award no attorney’s fees against the respondent, who is indigent and became self-represented during this litigation.  Acknowledging that they might be unable to collect any amount of such fees awarded, they nonetheless concede that they do not wish tenants who have disputes “to think that they’re free to file or defend litigation without risk of exposure to a fee award.”  Using fee awards as an instrument to deny access to the courts is neither the policy of the State of California, nor the purpose of the statute in question.  Indeed, California Rules of Court, rule 10.960, adopted effective July 1, 2008 states:  “Providing access to justice for self-represented litigants is a priority for California courts.”  We remand to the trial court for reconsideration of the amount of fees consistent with these principles.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Sharon Green was a member and tenant of Amar Plaza,[1] a housing cooperative for low-income tenants.  She had lived there, with the assistance of a federal housing subsidy, for approximately 31 years until she was evicted in January 2007.

In February 2005, other tenants of the complex filed suit against the complex and its managers and directors; those pleadings are not at issue here.  Green initially sought to intervene in that litigation in October 2006.  In April 2007, she filed her First Amended Complaint in Intervention, alleging violations of the Corporations Code and the bylaws of Amar Plaza in the management and operation of the complex.  Although she was represented by counsel at that time, her counsel withdrew on July 7, 2007, and she thereafter acted as a self-represented litigant.  The Amar Plaza parties have not provided this court with a record sufficient to determine the disposition of the claims raised by the other parties, although they suggest those claims were voluntarily dismissed; we cannot determine the outcome of any portion of the litigation other than Green’s claims, or determine whether the merits of the matter in which she intervened were ever determined.

Twenty days after her counsel withdrew, Green was served with the Amar Plaza parties’ Motion for Summary Judgment.  She did not respond; the trial court granted the unopposed motion on November 5, and entered judgment on November 7, 2007.  We have not been asked to review that judgment.[2]

Following the entry of judgment, the Amar Plaza parties moved for attorney’s fees of $48,328 pursuant to Civil Code section 1354, subdivision (c).  After several briefs were filed by the parties, and after Green filed various documents to support her claim of indigency, including a copy of the waiver of court fees and costs under Government Code section 68511.3, the court awarded no attorney’s fees in light of Green’s financial condition on March 4, 2008.  The Amar Plaza parties timely appealed.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The issue of a party’s entitlement to attorney’s fees is a legal issue which we review de novo.  (Connerly v. State Personnel Bd. (2006) 37 Cal.4th 1169, 1175-1176; Leamon v. Krajkiewcz (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 424, 431; Carver v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc. (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 132, 142.)  However, the determination of the amount of fees to be awarded is reviewed for abuse of discretion.  (See, e.g., MHC Financing Limited Partnership Two v. City of Santee (2005) 125 Cal.App.4th 1372, 1397; Salaway v. Ocean Towers Housing Corp. (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 664, 669.)

■ HELD:

ATTORNEY'S FEES
Garcia v. Santana, No. B206513
In a dispute involving attorney's fees, trial court judgment is reversed where: 1) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in considering defendant's financial condition in setting the amount of attorney's fees; and 2) the statute requires the amount of fees to be reasonable, and the trial court failed to exercise its discretion and consider all the other necessary circumstances in setting the amount of attorney's fees to be awarded to the prevailing party.
Garcia v. Santana .-B206513-5/28/09 CA2/7
Garcia v. Santana .-B206513-5/28/09 CA2/7-PDF


 

California Supreme And Appellate Court Opinions Directory       
Case Summaries Directory