Frog Creek Partners, LLC v. Vance Brown, Inc.
206 Cal. App. 4th 515
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Brown contracted Frog Creek to build a multimillion dollar home; dispute involved dispute-resolution, arbitration, and attorney-fee provisions; two contract versions existed due to Frog Creek interlineations and signatures were not mutual; Brown moved to compel arbitration under CCP 1281.2 in March 2005; trial court denied, Brown appealed and this court remanded after Frog Creek I/II; arbitration panel awarded Brown substantial damages and fees; trial court split fees between Brown and Frog Creek, awarding Brown and Frog Creek fees on different contract outcomes; this court held only one prevailing party on the contract in a given lawsuit and reversed Frog Creek’s fee award; remanded for Brown to receive fees for the first petition to compel arbitration and for the appeal; the opinion discusses the evolution of the prevailing-party standard under Civ. Code §1717 and analyzes related cases.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Brown or Frog Creek prevails on the contract for §1717 fees | Brown is prevailing on the contract overall | Frog Creek prevailed on the petition to arbitrate | Brown is the prevailing party; Frog Creek’s fee award is reversed |
| Whether Frog Creek may recover fees for defeating the March 2005 petition to arbitrate | Brown’s action on the contract supports Brown’s fees; no double recovery | Arbitrability defeat constitutes a contract-based win for Frog Creek | No; only one prevailing party on the contract in the lawsuit; Frog Creek’s fee award reversed |
| Whether Acosta/Kors rationale applies to allow separate arbitration-fee awards | Acosta/Kors support separate fees for independent petitions | Acosta/Kors should not apply to this mixed context | Rejected; Acosta/Kors not controlling; single-contract-fee rule applies |
| Brown's entitlement to fees for the first petition and the appeal | Brown prevails on the contract; entitled to fees for proceedings on the petition and appeal | Frog Creek should receive fees for opposing the petition and the appeal | Brown entitled to reasonable fees for the first petition and for the appeal; remand for amount |
Key Cases Cited
- Lachkar v. Lachkar, 182 Cal.App.3d 641 (1986) (defined prevailing party as costs recipient; no award for independent petition to arbitrate)
- Green v. Mt. Diablo Hospital Dist., 207 Cal.App.3d 63 (1989) (fee award premature when arbitration petition decided within pending contract action)
- Otay River Constructors v. San Diego Expressway, 158 Cal.App.4th 796 (2008) (defeating arbitration petition in discrete proceeding can be per se prevailing on contract)
- Turner v. Schultz, 175 Cal.App.4th 974 (2009) (fees awarded in discrete petition context; distinguishes Lachkar)
- Hsu v. Abbara, 9 Cal.4th 863 (1995) (defines prevailing party on contract when multiple contract claims exist)
- Kors v. Kors, 195 Cal.App.4th 40 (2011) (discusses Acosta-like reasoning in arbitration context)
- Acosta v. Kerrigan, 150 Cal.App.4th 1124 (2007) (contractual-fee language; Acosta limited to independent provision context)
- Maldonado v. CDF Firefighters, 200 Cal.App.4th 158 (2011) (discusses action vs. cause of action distinction in fee awards)
- Santisas v. Goodin, 17 Cal.4th 599 (1998) (uniform treatment of fee recoveries in contract actions)