Enpalm, Lcc v. Teitler Family Trust

I respectfully dissent from the result reached by the majority in this case. I agree with the recitation of the general principles that govern the determination of the appropriate amount of attorney fees to be awarded pursuant to Civil Code section 1717. 1 I agree that “[t]he trial court has broad discretion to determine the amount of a reasonable fee, and the award of such fees is governed by equitable principles. (PLCM Group, *779 Inc. v. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1084, 1094-1095 [ 95 Cal.Rptr.2d 198 , 997 P.2d 511 ] (PLCM).)” (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 774.) I further agree that the use of the “lodestar” method of calculating the fee is the approved method for the determination of fees. However, I disagree with the majority that the trial judge in this case properly applied these principles in determining the reasonable amount of attorney fees to be awarded in this case.

My analysis necessarily begins with the reasons the trial judge gave to explain why he first reduced the fees from $100,000 to $50,000 and then from $50,000 to $5,000. The appellants initially submitted a motion for award of over $100,000 in attorney fees. In accordance with the standard procedure, the trial…

Defendants Tracy P. Teitler, Teitler Investments, and the Teitler Family Trust appeal from the order reducing their award of contractual attorney fees after they were awarded judgment in a real estate fraud and breach of contract action. We hold that the trial court properly applied equitable principles to reduce the fee award and therefore affirm the order.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

In December 2003, Ezri Namvar bought a Beverly Hills apartment building owned by the Teitler Family Trust (the Trust). Namvar was a principal of EnPalm, LLC, and he soon after assigned his interest in the deal to EnPalm. 2 When EnPalm learned that one of the tenants, Fred Yadegar, had a long-term lease in the building, it sued Yadegar, the Trust, and Tracy P. Teitler, presumably for breach of contract and misrepresentation concerning the existence of any tenants with such leases. 3 At the May 2006 bench trial, Yadegar tried to introduce a written 10-year lease supposedly signed by *773 Teitler. The court excluded that document because there was no proof that it or Teitler’s signature were authentic and because there was a genuine dispute about the terms of that purported agreement.…

Defendants Tracy P. Teitler, Teitler Investments, and the Teitler Family Trust appeal from the order reducing their award of contractual attorney fees after they were awarded judgment in a real estate fraud and breach of contract action. We hold that the trial court properly applied equitable principles to reduce the fee award and therefore affirm the order.

In December 2003, Ezri Namvar bought a Beverly Hills apartment building owned by the Teitler Family Trust (the Trust). Namvar was a principal of En-Palm, LLC, and he soon after assigned his interest in the deal to EnPalm. [2] When EnPalm learned that one of the tenants, Fred Yadegar, had a long-term lease in the building, it sued Yadegar, the Trust, and Tracy P. Teitler, presumably for breach of contract and misrepresentation concerning the existence of any tenants with such leases. [3] At the May 2006 bench trial, Yadegar tried to introduce a written 10-year lease supposedly signed by Teitler. The court excluded that document because there was no proof that it or Teitler's signature were authentic and because there was a genuine dispute about the terms of that purported agreement. According to the trial court's…