Nielson v. Courtney CA2/6

Filed 5/18/23 Nielson v. Courtney CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

BRETT A. NIELSON, 2d Civil No. B324058 (Super. Ct. No. 56-2020- Plaintiff and Appellant, 00547663-CU-OR-VTA) (Ventura County) v.

SHANNON J. COURTNEY,

Defendant and Respondent.

Brett A. Nielson appeals from the judgment after the trial court ordered the partition sale of a Newbury Park property he co-owned with Shannon J. Courtney. The court also awarded Nielson and Courtney attorney fees and costs, to be paid from the proceeds of the property sale. Nielson contends the court erred when it: (1) declined to apportion his fees entirely to Courtney, and (2) granted Courtney’s fee request. We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Nielson and Courtney were a couple for nearly 16 years. They owned property and raised a child together. Eventually, their relationship deteriorated to the point that Nielson requested an order forcing the partition sale of the Newbury Park

home he and Courtney owned. He moved for summary judgment on his request the following year. The trial court granted Nielson’s motion, and entered an interlocutory judgment of partition. It reserved ruling on any claims for the recovery and apportionment of attorney fees and costs. Nielson and Courtney both moved for attorney fees awards. In his motion, Nielson claimed he filed the partition action for the “common benefit” because proceeds from the sale would be split equally between him and Courtney. He asked the trial court to apportion the $22,000 in fees he sought entirely to her, claiming she “caused the[] costs to be incurred by . . . refus[ing] to cooperate in the sale of the property.” He also urged the court to deny any recovery sought by Courtney because, in his view, her actions in the case only served to delay the property sale and thus were not for the common benefit. Courtney had a different view. She claimed the actions she took in the partition action were not dilatory but were instead required because of the “deftly calculated . . . ambiguity” of Nielson’s pleadings and his attorney’s refusal to engage with hers. She requested that the trial court deny Nielson’s fee request and instead order him to pay the entirety of the nearly $35,000 in fees she claimed to have incurred. The trial court viewed Nielson and Courtney’s attorney fee dispute a consequence of their “toxic relationship,” one akin to “two scorpions in a bottle.” Both parties alleged they were “content to conclude their relationship with [the] sale of the [Newbury Park] property” and a “50/50 split of the proceeds,” but at the same time claimed the other’s “unreasonable demands” prevented early resolution of the case. It was also “impossible” to determine which of the parties’ attorneys refused to engage with the other. Ultimately, the court concluded that the presence of