511 S. Park View, Inc. v. Tsantis

Filed 9/15/15 and certified for publication as modified 10/5/15.

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION APPELLATE DIVISION OF THE SUPERIOR COURT STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

511 S. PARK VIEW, INC., ) No. BV 031134 ) Plaintiff and Appellant, ) Central Trial Court ) v. ) No. 14U07420 ) MARIA TSANTIS et al., ) ) Defendants and Respondents. ) OPINION ) APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Mary Ann Murphy, Judge. Reversed. Karen Nakon of the Law Offices of Kevin B. Jones, for Plaintiff and Appellant 511 S. Park View, Inc. Ave Buchwald of the Blumberg Law Corporation, for Defendants and Respondents Maria Tsantis and Michael Iorio.

* * *

INTRODUCTION Plaintiff 511 S. Park View, Inc. appeals from an order awarding $12,375 in attorney fees to defendants Maria Tsantis and Michael Iorio following an unlawful detainer court trial. Plaintiff contends the award of attorney fees was limited by the

1

express terms of the parties‟ lease agreement, and therefore the trial court erred in awarding an amount in excess of $750. We conclude that the court‟s ruling was in error and reverse the attorney fees order. BACKGROUND Plaintiff filed an unlawful detainer complaint against defendants alleging failure to comply with a three-day notice to pay rent or quit. The complaint requested possession of the premises, past due rent of $1,050, holdover damages, forfeiture of the lease agreement, costs, and reasonable attorney fees. In response, defendants filed an answer, in which they also requested reasonable attorney fees. Following a court trial wherein judgment was rendered in defendants‟ favor, defendants filed a motion for attorney fees as the prevailing parties. The motion argued defendants were entitled to recover $12,375 in attorney fees pursuant to Civil Code section 1717 and the attorney fees clause in the parties‟ lease agreement, and that the provision in the lease limiting the recovery of fees to $750 was void and unenforceable. Plaintiff filed an opposition, arguing there was no right to recover attorney fees in excess of $750 because attorney fee provisions in lease agreements, like all other contractual provisions, are enforced according to their terms. The trial court granted the motion for fees in its entirety, finding that “the $750.00 limitation on attorney fees in the lease is void and unenforceable.” DISCUSSION “A request for an award of attorney fees is entrusted to the trial court‟s discretion and will not be overturned in the absence of a manifest abuse of discretion, a prejudicial error of law, or necessary findings not supported by substantial evidence. [Citations.]” (Yield Dynamics, Inc. v. TEA Systems Corp. (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 547, 577.) Because the appeal centers on the attorney fees provision contained in the lease agreement, and neither party offered extrinsic evidence to aid in interpreting the contract, we turn immediately to the contract itself, which we interpret de novo. (See Hemphill v. Wright