Narula

City of Santa Paula v. Narula

Good Law
114 Cal. App. 4th 485·2003 Cal. App. LEXIS 1864·2003 Daily Journal DAR 13728·8 Cal. Rptr. 3d 75·2003 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 10869
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaDecember 17, 2003B160389California2,658 words

Opinion

Opinion

Gilbert, J.

Attorney fees are permitted when authorized by contract, statute or law. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1033.5, subd. (a)(10).) A city ordinance allows the city to collect attorney fees incurred in foreclosing a lien on real property. Just as “. . . a rose is a rose . . .” so is an ordinance a statute when it permits recovery of attorney fees.

Mohan and Sylvia Conway Narula (the Narulas) appeal a postjudgment order awarding attorney fees to the City of Santa Paula (the City). We conclude that: 1) the Narulas are barred by the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel, and the law of the case from challenging the validity of prior judgments; and 2) the attorney fees award of $34,236 to the City is not excessive. We affirm.

FACTS

The Narulas’ apartment building was in violation of numerous building and safety codes. For five years, the City brought proceedings before its code enforcement agencies to compel the Narulas to repair the leased units in their building. The City’s Appeals Hearing Board ordered the Narulas to comply with the codes and pay administrative costs and penalties. The Narulas refused to do either.

The city council ordered the city clerk to file a lien on…

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.