Bilodeau v. Modern Mobile Homes CA2/6

Filed 3/29/21 Bilodeau v. Modern Mobile Homes CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SIX

RAYMOND BILODEAU et al., 2d Civ. No. B302791 (Super. Ct. No. 56-2018- Plaintiffs and Appellants, 00521703-CU-PA-VTA) (Ventura County) v.

MODERN MOBILE HOMES, INC. et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

A note that was the subject of an arbitration contained a provision for attorney fees to the prevailing party in any action on the note. The arbitration agreement itself contained no provision for attorney fees. It was error for the trial court to award attorney fees to the prevailing party in a motion to vacate the arbitration award. We reverse. FACTS Modern Mobile Homes, Inc. (Modern) is a dealer in new and used mobile homes. It purchased a used mobile home and

remodeled it for sale. Raymond and Joanna Bilodeau agreed to purchase the mobile home for $99,415. They paid $45,000 down. Modern financed the balance by taking the Bilodeaus’ note secured by a security agreement in the mobile home. The purchase agreement contained an arbitration clause providing in part, “Buyers and sellers agree that any dispute or claim in law or equity arising between them out of this agreement, or any resulting transaction, . . . shall be decided by neutral binding arbitration . . . .” The purchase agreement did not contain an attorney fee clause. The note provided, “If any action is instituted on this Note, I/we promise to pay such sums as the Court may fix as attorney’s fees.” Shortly after the purchase, the Bilodeaus began extensive modifications to the interior of the mobile home. They claimed that during the modifications they found substantial structural defects. They claimed that Modern had defrauded them, and demanded rescission of the purchase transaction. Modern refused rescission, denying any wrongdoing, and claiming the Bilodeaus’ modifications had left the mobile home an empty husk. Unable to reach a settlement, the Bilodeaus invoked arbitration. Their complaint in arbitration prayed for damages and rescission, including a declaration that the purchase money note and security agreement have been rescinded. After a hearing, the arbitrator awarded the $45,000 down payment to Modern and declared that the Bilodeaus’ note would be cancelled upon retransfer of the mobile home to Modern. The arbitrator did not award attorney fees. The Bilodeaus made a motion in the trial court to vacate the arbitration award. They alleged that the arbitrator