Adassa Walker v. Ticor Title Co.
138 Cal. Rptr. 3d 820
Cal. Ct. App.2012Background
- Plaintiffs sued Ticor Title Company of California and others for alleged fraud/conspiracy to induce real estate refinancings; Khan acted as the fraud’s central figure via a mortgage brokerage firm.
- Ticor, as escrow holder, allegedly allowed Khan to take unsigned loan documents to obtain signatures offsite, aided by World Savings’ supposed authorization or waiver of the instruction prohibiting offsite signings.
- World Savings’ loan representative Dreuth worked with Khan, sometimes approving offsite signings for expediency and profit; expert testimony described offsite signings as common in 2003–2004.
- The trial court granted summary adjudication against plaintiffs on aiding-and-abetting and duty claims; trial proceeded against Khan (and his assistant) on breach of contract and fiduciary duty against Ticor.
- Jury largely found in Ticor’s favor; plaintiffs recovered against Khan but not against Ticor on most claims, with a minor exception related to one plaintiff.
- Posttrial, Ticor sought over $2 million in attorney fees under a contractual provision; the court reduced to $884,036.62 and allocated fees pro rata among plaintiffs; Ticor sought expert fees under section 998, which the court denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the financial burden on plaintiffs may reduce Ticor’s contractual fees | Plaintiffs argue the court should reduce fees for ability to pay to prevent ruinous impact. | Ticor contends no consideration of plaintiffs’ financial status is proper under contract-based fees. | Trial court abused discretion; financial condition not a proper factor for contractual fees; remand for proper calculation. |
| Whether the fee award should be allocated among plaintiffs rather than joint and several | Plaintiffs contend they should be jointly and severally liable for fees. | Ticor argues for joint and several liability under typical rule. | Court validly allocated fees among plaintiffs based on relative culpability; no abuse in allocation. |
| Whether the court erred in granting summary adjudication on aiding and abetting the fraud | Plaintiffs contend facts show Ticor aided Khan’s fraud via offsite signings. | Ticor argues no violation of escrow instructions or authority to disregard them. | No error in disposition; summary adjudication appropriate given the record. |
| Whether plaintiffs were entitled to JNOV or a new trial on breach of contract/fiduciary claims | Plaintiffs maintain jury verdicts were unsupported by evidence. | Ticor contends evidence supported verdicts. | No JNOV or new trial warranted; verdicts supported by trial record. |
| Whether expert witness fees under CCP 998 should be awarded | Plaintiffs argue 998 offers were not reasonably made and some experts did not testify. | Ticor contends 998 fees should be awarded for prevailing party; offers were reasonable. | Expert fees denied at trial; remanded for proper consideration consistent with standards. |
Key Cases Cited
- PLCM Group, Inc. v. Drexler, 22 Cal.4th 1084 (Cal. 2000) (sets standards for calculating and awarding contractual attorney fees; equitable factors apply)
- Garcia v. Santana, 174 Cal.App.4th 464 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) (limited consideration of financial impact in statutory fee context; distinguishes contractual fees)
- Santisas v. Goodin, 17 Cal.4th 599 (Cal. 1998) (uniformity in fee recovery for contract and statute; prevailing party concept)