Lewow v. Surfside III Condominium Owners Ass'n., Inc.
203 Cal. App. 4th 128
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Judgment entered for Association on February 3, 2010; Lewow filed Chapter 13 bankruptcy on February 10, 2010.
- Association prepared a Civil Code section 1354 fee motion but delayed filing due to belief the bankruptcy stay tolled proceedings.
- Bankruptcy proceedings were dismissed on July 23, 2010 and notice mailed July 25, 2010.
- Association filed its fee motion on August 26, 2010, 32 days after dismissal notice; Lewow argued timing issue under Rule 3.1702(b) and 60-day notice for appeal.
- Trial court held the 60-day period tolled by the stay; Lewow objected noting stay does not toll time limits.
- Court held time extended under 108(c) and Rule 3.1702(d); ultimately affirmed fee award.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the bankruptcy stay toll the 60-day deadline for fee motions? | Lewow: stay tolls time limits; no tolling. | Association: stay tolls under 108(c) extending deadline. | Stay does not toll 60-day period; time extended under 108(c) for notice of dismissal. |
| Was there good cause to extend the time under Rule 3.1702(d)? | Lewow: no extension after period expired; no good cause. | Association: mistake of law constitutes good cause. | Yes; court may extend for good cause due to reasonable mistaken belief about tolling. |
| Is the fee award permissible despite late filing? | Lewow: late filing bars recovery. | Association: extension preserves recovery; timely filing not required. | Affirmed; good cause extension allowed and fee award sustained. |
Key Cases Cited
- ECC Construction, Inc. v. Oak Park Calabasas Homeowners Assn., 118 Cal.App.4th 1031 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004) (automatic stay does not toll running of time for filing an appeal)
- In re Marquis D., 38 Cal.App.4th 1813 (Cal. Ct. App. 1995) (use of related statutes to interpret extension provisions)
- City of Ontario v. Superior Court, 2 Cal.3d 335 (Cal. 1970) (excusable neglect; good cause standard for extensions)
- Kertesz v. Ostrovsky, 115 Cal.App.4th 369 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004) (bankruptcy stay as statutory prohibition; tolling considerations)
- Schabarum v. California Legislature, 60 Cal.App.4th 1205 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998) (soundness of reasoning does not determine outcome if result correct)
- Serrano v. Unruh, 32 Cal.3d 621 (Cal. 1982) (attorney fees as costs; collateral matter ancillary to main action)
- Napue v. Gor-Mey West, Inc., 175 Cal.App.3d 608 (Cal. Ct. App. 1985) (statutes distinguishing limitations from other procedural time limits)
- Serrano v. Unruh, 32 Cal.3d 621 (Cal. 1982) (attorney fees; cost-shifting principles)