Williams v. Meyer CA

Filed 6/4/13 Williams v. Meyer CA/

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

CHRISTINA WILLIAMS, 2d Civil No. B243491 (Super. Ct. No. 56-2009-00357893- Plaintiff and Appellant, CU-OR-VTA) (Ventura County) v.

ROGER MEYER,

Defendant and Appellant.

In their appeals, Christina Williams (Williams) and Roger Meyer (Meyer) each challenge the trial court's award of attorney fees under Civil Code section 1717.1 We reject their challenges. However, we remand so the trial court may consider whether to grant Williams's request for an offset. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Since 2000, Williams has been the sole owner of a home in Newbury Park, California. In 2008, she and her estranged husband cosigned a promissory note and deed of trust for a $35,000 loan from Meyer secured by her home (First Note). A few months later, Williams's husband signed a second promissory note and deed of trust for a $143,775 loan from Meyer, also secured

1 Unless otherwise indicated, all statutory references are to the Civil Code.

by Williams's home (Second Note). Williams had no knowledge of the second loan or deed of trust. Both notes have attorney fees provisions. Williams sued Meyer to invalidate both notes. Among other things, she alleged that the First Note had a usurious interest rate and that her husband had repaid the note in full through his labor, entitling her to reconveyance of the deed of trust. She further alleged that Meyer's recording of the Second Note constituted a slander of her title to the home that had clouded title, causing her to be ineligible for refinancing to a lower interest rate and to incur attorney fees. Meyer counter-sued, alleging that Williams breached and committed fraud with regard to the Second Note. On the eve of trial, the parties effectively settled their dispute over the First Note by stipulating to (1) reduce the face amount of that note from $35,000 to $33,450; (2) lower the interest rate from 12.99 percent to 7 percent; and (3) reset the accrual date for interest from December 2008 to June 2009. Following a two-day bench trial, the trial court ruled that Meyer had slandered the title to Williams's home and awarded her $29,639 in damages due to lost refinancing opportunities. The final judgment stated that Williams was "the prevailing party . . . entitled to her costs." Williams then filed an unopposed cost bill seeking $7,121.75, and asked the trial court to offset her damages award and costs against the First Note's outstanding balance. The parties filed cross-motions for attorney fees. The trial court analyzed each Note separately. As to the First Note, the court ruled that Meyer had prevailed because Meyer was still to receive $33,450 on the $35,000 note. The court awarded Meyer $43,750 in attorney's fees under section 1717. As to the Second Note, the court ruled that Williams was the prevailing party and awarded her $122,500 in attorney fees as an element of her damages for slander of title and under section 1717.