Lee v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA

Bad Law
106 Cal. Rptr. 2d 726·2001 Cal. App. LEXIS 338·2001 Daily Journal DAR 4481·88 Cal. App. 4th 1187·2001 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3671
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 8, 2001B143859California6,387 words

Opinion

Opinion

Curry, J.

This appeal is from an order awarding attorney fees and costs to respondent Warren Lee. Lee’s original request for fees and costs was denied by the trial court as untimely. Almost six months after the court’s order was entered, Lee sought relief under section 473 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereafter section 473), which was granted. Appellant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (hereafter Wells Fargo) contends that the request for relief was itself untimely. Well Fargo maintains that the request should have been brought within six months of the date Wells Fargo raised the untimeliness issue in its opposition to Lee’s original attorney fee motion and its motions to tax costs and strike the costs memorandum. Because the section 473 motion was filed more than six months after that date, Wells Fargo believes it should have been denied. We conclude that the six-month deadline contained in section 473 began to run on the date the trial court issued its final order denying fees and costs, and affirm.

Factual and Procedural Background

The underlying lawsuit involved a 1996 nonjudicial foreclosure and trustee’s sale of Lee’s home by Wells Fargo. In his complaint, Lee sought to set aside…

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.