Monterossa v. Superior Court
237 Cal. App. 4th 747
Cal. Ct. App.2015Background
- In 2014 Michael Monterossa and Cheranne Nobis sought emergency relief to halt a trustee’s sale of their owner-occupied home, alleging the lender engaged in “dual tracking” in violation of Civil Code § 2923.6.
- The superior court issued a TRO and, after hearing, granted a preliminary injunction enjoining the trustee’s sale conditioned on bond or monthly payments, finding petitioners likely to prevail on the dual-tracking claim.
- Petitioners then moved for attorney fees and costs under Civil Code § 2924.12(i), which authorizes fees to a “prevailing borrower” who obtained injunctive relief or damages under the statute.
- The superior court denied fees, reasoning the statute contemplates fees only at final judgment (after permanent relief), not for interim relief like a preliminary injunction.
- Petitioners petitioned for writ relief; the Court of Appeal granted the writ, holding that obtaining a preliminary injunction under § 2924.12 qualifies a borrower as a “prevailing borrower” entitled to reasonable attorney fees and costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a borrower who obtains a preliminary injunction under Civil Code § 2924.12 is a "prevailing borrower" entitled to attorney fees and costs under § 2924.12(i) | A preliminary injunction is "injunctive relief" under the statute; obtaining it means the borrower prevailed and thus is entitled to fees. | The statute contemplates fees only at the conclusion of the action (permanent relief); interim fee awards for provisional relief are disallowed. | The court held a borrower who obtains a preliminary injunction is a "prevailing borrower" under § 2924.12(i) and may be awarded reasonable attorney fees and costs; the superior court must reconsider the fee motion on the merits. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jolley v. Chase Home Finance, LLC, 213 Cal.App.4th 872 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013) (discusses the foreclosure statutory scheme and the problem of dual tracking)
- Crews v. Willows Unified School Dist., 217 Cal.App.4th 1368 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013) (de novo review appropriate when fee-award determination requires statutory construction)
- Hunt v. Superior Court, 21 Cal.4th 984 (Cal. 1999) (framework for preliminary injunction: likelihood of success and balance of harms)
- Nolan v. City of Anaheim, 33 Cal.4th 335 (Cal. 2004) (general rules of statutory construction)
- Continental Baking Co. v. Katz, 68 Cal.2d 512 (Cal. 1968) (principles on purpose of preliminary injunctions and maintaining the status quo)
- Bouvia v. County of Los Angeles, 195 Cal.App.3d 1075 (Cal. Ct. App. 1987) (example of awarding fees for preliminary injunctions under certain statutes)