Carter
Carter v. Mike Thompson Recreational Vehicles CA4/3
Opinion
Opinion
Bedsworth, J.
INTRODUCTION
Appellant James Carter was dissatisfied with a vehicle he purchased. After bringing consumer warranty claims against two entity defendants – one of which manufactured the vehicle, and the other of which sold him the vehicle – Carter and the two defendants entered into a written, integrated settlement agreement. Under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (Civ. Code, §1790 et seq.) (Song-Beverly Act), prevailing buyers must be permitted to recover attorney fees and costs. (See Civ. Code, §1794, subd. (d).) However, by the explicit terms of the parties’ settlement agreement, and due to an indemnity agreement between the defendants, only one of the two defendants was responsible to pay said fees and costs. In an unfortunate twist of fate, this defendant entered into receivership in its native Canada shortly after Carter obtained a ruling fixing the amount of attorney fees it would need to pay him. Now, Carter seeks to hold the other defendant responsible for those fees. We hold he cannot do this and affirm the other defendant’s dismissal. But we reverse and remand the trial court’s dismissal of the action as against the responsible defendant so the attorney fee award…