Cho

Cho v. Patel CA2/5

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaSeptember 12, 2022B312306California1,472 words

Opinion

Opinion

Kim, J.

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff and appellant Nam Min Cho prevailed on a summary judgment motion in a quiet title action against defendant and respondent Balubhai Patel, as trustee of the Balubhai Patel Revocable Trust Dated March 14, 2007, as to certain real property. Plaintiff then filed a motion for attorney fees pursuant to an asserted attorney fees provision in the deed of trust on the property and Civil Code section 1717 1. The trial court denied the motion and plaintiff appeals. We affirm.

II. DISCUSSION2

Plaintiff contends the trial court erred when it ruled that the deed of trust did not contain an attorney fees provision. We disagree.

A. Standard of Review

Ordinarily, we review a trial court’s ruling on an attorney fees motion for an abuse of discretion. (Conservatorship of Whitley (2010) 50 Cal.4th 1206, 1213.) When, however, the

All further statutory references are to the Civil Code unless otherwise noted.

Because the only issue on appeal concerns the interpretation of an attorney fees provision in a deed of trust, we omit a recitation of the facts underlying plaintiff’s action against defendant.

2 entitlement to attorney fees requires a…

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.