Brienza

Brienza v. Tepper

Good Law
1995 Cal. App. LEXIS 602·35 Cal. App. 4th 1839·42 Cal. Rptr. 2d 690·95 Daily Journal DAR 8637·95 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5105
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 29, 1995D017475California3,900 words

Opinion

Opinion

Hoffman, J.

Defendants Jerry J. Tepper and C.F. Group, Ltd. (together Tepper) appeal an order finding plaintiff Ralph Brienza’s (Brienza) attorney’s lien for contingency fees in the underlying lawsuit against Tepper was entitled to priority over a subsequently acquired offset obtained by Tepper (the judgment debtor) against Brienza (the judgment creditor). We affirm.

Facts

The parties agree no disputed facts exist in this case which we summarize below.

San Diego Case

On April 4, 1990, Brienza filed the underlying lawsuit against Tepper. The complaint alleged various causes of action arising out of a breach by Tepper of an alleged oral partnership agreement.

On January 24, 1991, Brienza retained Attorney Gino V. Mazzanti (Mazzanti) under a contingency fee agreement. The agreement provided that Brienza granted Mazzanti a lien on Brienza’s claim to secure attorney fees and costs.

After a court trial, judgment was entered on July 8, 1992, in favor of Brienza and against Tepper in the amount of $99,773 and postjudgment interest at a rate of $27.33 per day.

Colorado Case

On March 4, 1991, in Jefferson County, Colorado, First Interstate Bank (FIB) obtained a judgment against Brienza…

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.