BEHNIWAL

BEHNIWAL v. Mix

Good Law
147 Cal. App. 4th 621·2007 Cal. App. LEXIS 167·2007 Daily Journal DAR 1825·54 Cal. Rptr. 3d 427·2007 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1447
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaFebruary 7, 2007G037200California9,123 words

Opinion

Opinion

Sills, J.

I. BACKGROUND

This appeal raises the question of what is properly “incidental” to a grant of specific performance. The background facts may be quickly stated: There was a contract to sell a family residence. The sellers reneged. The buyers sought specific performance. The trial court denied it. The buyers appealed. This court reversed. We directed the trial court to grant the buyers’ request and enter a judgment granting them their requested specific performance. (See Behniwal v. Mix (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 1027, 1046 [ 35 Cal.Rptr.3d 320 ].)

On remand, however, the trial court added this twist to the judgment:

Since the attorney fee award was over $250,000, and the purchase price of the property was $540,000, the practical effect of the judgment now under review is to reduce the consideration the sellers will receive for their property to less than $290,000. The sellers have appealed from that part of the judgment. (They also raise a less novel issue regarding the proper calculation of the attorney fees which is dealt with in part IV. of this opinion.)

We thus deal mainly in this appeal not with the right to compensation or the attorney fee award as such. Rather, we…

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.