Faitz

Hambrose Reserve, Ltd. v. Faitz

Bad Law
11 Cal. Rptr. 2d 638·1992 Cal. App. LEXIS 1057·9 Cal. App. 4th 129·92 Daily Journal DAR 12089·92 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7491
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 31, 1992C012501California1,314 words

Opinion

Opinion

Puglia, J.

Defendant Henry J. Faitz appeals from an order denying his motions to determine the prevailing party and award attorney fees. Faitz contends he prevailed in an action based on a contract containing an attorney fee provision to which Civil Code section 1717 (section 1717) applies, and his status as an attorney appearing in propria persona does not preclude an award to him of attorney fees. We conclude this is not an action on a contract but a proceeding to enforce a judgment and section 1717 therefore does not apply. Accordingly, we shall affirm.

Hambrose Reserve, Ltd. sued Faitz on a promissory note in New York and obtained judgment. The judgment awarded Hambrose Reserve $22,200 with interest in the sum of $7,484.74 and $172.50 in costs.

Hambrose Reserve applied to enforce the New York judgment in California. (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1710.10-1710.65.) Judgment was entered on Hambrose Reserve’s application (Code Civ. Proc., § 1710.25) but was vacated on motion of Faitz (Code Civ. Proc., § 1710.40). Hambrose Reserve then filed a second application to establish the New York judgment. Judgment was again entered and Faitz demurred to the application and moved to vacate the…

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.