HINERFELD-WARD, INC.,v.LIPIAN
Filed 9/1/10
IN
THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND
APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION
FOUR
HINERFELD-WARD, INC.,
Plaintiff, Cross-defendant, and Respondent,
v.
MARK LIPIAN et al.,
Defendants, Cross-complainants, and Appellants.
B211257
(Los Angeles
County
Super. Ct.
No. BC365866)
STORY CONTINUE FROM
PART I….
The Lipians argue that while the
monthly charge may be a penalty, and hence recoverable under section 3260.1, an
award of attorney fees is not. They
contend it is, instead, compensation to the prevailing party for successfully
litigating the right to progress payments.
This also is shown by the fact that fees may be assessed in favor of the
â€
| Description | The appellants in this litigation are homeowners who embarked on a major residential home improvement project. They appeal from a judgment in these cross-actions in favor of their general contractor which awarded them only $1,000 in damages on their negligence cause of action. They contend the trial court erred in enforcing an oral contract in violation of statutory requirements that the contract be in writing; that the contractor was not entitled to an award of statutory attorney fees; and that the trial court erred in striking testimony by one of the homeowners about damages. In the published portion of this opinion, Court conclude that the oral contract was enforceable and that the contractor is entitled to attorney fees for the homeowners' delay in making progress payments. In the unpublished portion of our opinion we conclude that the trial court's error in striking the homeowner's lay testimony was harmless. |
| Rating |
