Kennedy v. Morin CA2/3

Filed 6/22/15 Kennedy v. Morin CA2/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

LARRY D. KENNEDY, as Trustee, etc., B254871

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. SC121073) v.

ROBERT MORIN, et al.,

Defendants and Appellants.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Gerald Rosenberg, Judge. Affirmed. Law Offices of James E. McDaniel and James E. McDaniel; William D. Hall for Plaintiff and Respondent. Fuchs & Associates, John R. Fuchs and Gail S. Gilfillan for Defendants and Appellants.

_________________________

Defendants and appellants Robert Morin and Susan Morin (the Morins) appeal a postjudgment order awarding them attorney fees in the sum of $10,000 following their successful defense of an unlawful detainer action filed by plaintiff and respondent Larry D. Kennedy, trustee for the Kennedy Family Trust (Kennedy). The essential issue presented is whether the trial court abused its discretion in awarding the Morins attorney fees in the sum of $10,000, rather than the $70,000 they requested. “ ‘[W]ith respect to the amount of fees awarded, there is no question our review must be highly deferential to the views of the trial court.’ [Citations.]” (Concepcion v. Amscan Holdings, Inc. (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 1309, 1319 (Concepcion).) On the record presented, we perceive no manifest abuse of discretion with respect to the amount of the award, and thus we affirm the trial court’s order. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On July 24, 2013, Kennedy filed an unlawful detainer action against the Morins, seeking possession of the Venice apartment they had occupied for the past 18 years, plus past due rent of $27,012. The Morins filed an answer asserting, inter alia, that the amount of rent demanded in the notice to pay or quit, and the $75.03 daily rental value demanded in the complaint, were excessive due to numerous habitability violations, including defective/leaking plumbing, broken windows, mold, asbestos, infestation of insects and rodents, and missing smoke detectors. The matter was tried to a jury over a three day period. On November 15, 2013, the jury returned a special verdict, which found that at the time the Morins failed to pay the rent that was due, the property was not in a habitable condition. The jury determined the rent should be reduced by the following percentages for habitability violations: 20 percent for waterproofing/weather protection; 20 percent for plumbing/gas facilities; 20 percent for water supply capable of producing hot/cold running water; 10 percent for