Riverisland Cold Storage v. Fresno-Madera Production credit Assn. CA5

Filed 9/28/15 Riverisland Cold Storage v. Fresno-Madera Production credit Assn. CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

RIVERISLAND COLD STORAGE INC., et al., F069366 Plaintiffs and Appellants, (Super. Ct. No. 08CECG01416) v.

FRESNO-MADERA PRODUCTION CREDIT OPINION ASSOCIATION,

Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Jeffrey Y. Hamilton, Judge. Wild, Carter & Tipton and Steven E. Paganetti for Plaintiffs and Appellants. Lang, Richert & Patch and Scott J. Ivy for Defendant and Respondent. -ooOoo- Plaintiffs appeal from a postjudgment order awarding attorney fees to defendant. Plaintiffs contend the award included fees that were excessive, duplicative, and unreasonable. We find no abuse of discretion and affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Plaintiffs sued defendant, alleging in several causes of action that plaintiffs and defendant negotiated a forbearance agreement, by which defendant agreed to extend plaintiffs’ existing loans for two years in exchange for plaintiffs’ agreement to put up two

ranches as additional security for the loans. The written agreement defendant prepared, however, provided for a six-month extension and included plaintiffs’ residence and a truck yard in the additional security. Plaintiffs signed the written forbearance agreement without reading it. Defendant moved for summary judgment, asserting plaintiffs were bound by the written contract, and parol evidence of an oral agreement to different terms was not admissible. The trial court granted the motion and entered judgment for defendant. We reversed, concluding the fraud exception to the parol evidence rule made evidence of the misrepresentations alleged by plaintiffs admissible. Defendant sought review in the Supreme Court, which overruled the prior Supreme Court precedent on which defendant had relied and affirmed our judgment. (Riverisland Cold Storage, Inc. v. Fresno-Madera Production Credit Assn. (2013) 55 Cal.4th 1169.) On remand to the trial court, defendant again moved for summary judgment, contending plaintiffs were required to show justifiable reliance on defendant’s alleged oral misrepresentations in order to establish the fraud exception to the parol evidence rule. It asserted plaintiffs could not do so because the contract set out the material terms in writing, plaintiffs had the opportunity and ability to read the contract before they signed it, and plaintiffs simply failed to read the contract. The trial court again granted summary judgment in favor of defendant. Defendant then moved for an award of attorney fees pursuant to a provision in the forbearance agreement for recovery of attorney fees by the prevailing party. The trial court granted the motion, reduced some of the amounts requested by defendant, and awarded a total of $245,920.50 to defendant. Plaintiffs appeal the award of attorney fees. DISCUSSION I. Standard of Review In the trial court, “the burden is on the party seeking attorney fees to prove that the fees it seeks are reasonable.” (Gorman v. Tassajara Development Corp. (2009) 178