Honey

Honey v. Estate of Schaumann

Good Law
119 F. App'x 42
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitDecember 9, 2004No. 03-55307; D.C. No. CV-01-11179-DTCalifornia343 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM *

Appellants Tatiana Schaumann, The Schaumann Communications Group, Inc., and Schaumann Communications Services, Inc., (collectively “Schaumann”), appeal the district court’s denial of their request for attorneys’ fees. Schaumann argues that they are entitled to attorneys’ fees under California Civil Code § 1717, as the prevailing parties in the underlying suit by Vicki Lynn Honey against Schaumann for breach of the Marital Settlement Agreement. The district court held that the agreement had merged into the subsequent judgment of dissolution of marriage, and granted Schaumann’s motion for summary judgement. The court determined that Schaumann was entitled to costs but denied Schaumann attorneys’ fees because the prior contract no longer existed as a result of the judgment. Thus, in this suit, neither party could have been entitled to fees under the contract.

California Civil Code § 1717 provides that “the party who is determined to be the party prevailing on the contract ... shall be entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees in addition to other costs.” However, the statute also provides that a court may “determine that there is no party prevailing on the contract.” Id.…

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.