Steele

Steele v. Gold

Good Law
150 Cal. App. 3d 928·198 Cal. Rptr. 257·1984 Cal. App. LEXIS 1504
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 13, 1984Civ. 70086California1,070 words

Opinion

Opinion

Roth, J.

Respondents Clifton and Marie Steele brought a motion to sever their complaint from the cross-complaint filed by appellant Irving Hershey Gold. In addition to granting the motion, the trial court by minute order dated March 8, 1983, awarded respondents $500 in attorney’s fees, not, as they had requested, under Code of Civil Procedure section 128.5, but as costs pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1032.

Appellant moved for reconsideration of the order insofar as it involved the fee award but the motion was denied by minute order dated April 7, 1983, with a further award of attorney’s fees to respondents of $350, again pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1032.

In explaining the reasoning behind its actions the trial court remarked:

That the rationale so articulated is at odds with settled principle as codified in Code of Civil Procedure section 1021 is clear from the observations in Bauguess v. Paine (1978) 22 Cal.3d 626 at page 634 [ 150 Cal.Rptr. 461 , 586 P.2d 942 ] to the effect that: “It has been the traditional practice in this country for each litigant to bear his or her own attorney’s fees. (Prentice v. North Amer. Title Guar. Corp. (1963) 59…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.