Best ADA compliance & defense attorney

Defendant real estate broker appealed a postjudgment order from the
Superior Court of Sonoma County (California), which awarded attorney fees to
plaintiff seller as the prevailing party in a dispute concerning a real estate
transaction and denied the broker's motion for attorney fees.The best ADA
compliance & defense attorney gives helps you in
business litigation.

The seller asked the broker to obtain security from the
buyer of her retail business, which the broker failed to do. The buyer
subsequently filed for bankruptcy protection, and a portion of the purchase
price went unpaid. The parties' listing agreement contained an attorney fee
provision that provided for mediation of any dispute prior to litigation and
for an award of costs and fees to the prevailing party. The trial court awarded
damages to the seller on a negligence cause of action, while also finding that
the broker had not breached the contract. The court held that the parties had
agreed under Code Civ. Proc., § 1021, to an attorney fee provision encompassing
tort claims because the broad wording of the provision applied to "any
dispute." Accordingly, the definition of a prevailing party in an action
on a contract under Civ. Code, § 1717, subd. (b), did not govern the trial
court's prevailing party determination. The seller was the prevailing party
under the general cost provisions in Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1032, subds. (a)(4),
(b), 1033.5, subd. (a)(10)(A), because the seller obtained a net recovery in
her action against the broker.

The court affirmed the order.

Defendant laboratory sought review of a decision of the
Superior Court of San Diego County (California) which, upon a jury verdict,
entered judgment in plaintiff company's favor in plaintiff's action alleging
defendant breached a contractual duty with regard to the creation of a legal
partnership structure.

Plaintiff was a party to a venture with defendant laboratory
and others to create a partnership. When the parties to the transaction were
sued for alleged antitrust violations, the parties settled and the partnership
terminated. Plaintiff then brought an action against defendant alleging that it
failed to legally structure the enterprise. Plaintiff contended that
defendant's breach of its responsibility to assure legal compliance resulted in
lost profits to plaintiff. Following a jury verdict on plaintiff's behalf, the
trial court entered judgment in plaintiff's favor. On appeal, the court
reversed with directions to enter judgment in defendant's favor. The appellate
court reasoned that the trial court erred in submitting the parties' agreement
to the jury for interpretation because such interpretation only presented a
question of law. The appellate court also determined that under the parties' agreement,
defendant did not assume full responsibility for structural legality of the
enterprise.

The judgment of lower court was reversed with directions to
enter a judgment in defendant's favor, because the lower court erred in
submitting the parties' agreement to the jury for interpretation when the sole
issue presented by the document was a question of law.