Rickley

Rickley v. Goodfriend

Good Law
145 Cal. Rptr. 3d 13·2012 Cal. App. LEXIS 843·207 Cal. App. 4th 1528·2012 WL 3065543
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJuly 30, 2012No. B234152California3,511 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Woods, J.

Rebecca A. Rickley and Natasha Roit (collectively referred to as appellants) appeal from an order denying attorney fees to Roit, an attorney, for enforcing postjudgment contempt proceedings against respondents Marvin Goodfriend and Tina Fasbender Goodfriend. Although the court awarded attorney fees to Roit’s cocounsel, it denied the request as to Roit, citing a lack of California authority to support an award of fees to a pro se attorney. Appellants contend the rule against awarding fees to a pro se plaintiff should not apply in contempt proceedings or that Roit should be able to recover fees for representing her spouse. We reverse and remand.

FACTUAL & PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Appellants, who are married, own a home in Malibu over the Pacific Coast Highway. They filed a nuisance action in superior court against neighboring homeowners and respondents Marvin Goodfriend and Tina Fasbender Goodfriend (collectively respondents, individually referred to as Goodfriend and Fasbender). Respondents performed an illegal unpermitted remodel, after which they buried construction trash and debris on the hillside of their and *1531 appellants’ properties, in a landslide-sensitive area.…

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.