Prudential Ins. v. Fallgatter
Filed 3/9/06 Prudential Ins. v. Fallgatter CA5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
| THE PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. THOMAS FALLGATTER et al., Defendants and Appellants. | F046007
(Super. Ct. No. CV241147)
O P I N I O N |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. Sidney P. Chapin, Judge.
McCormick, Barstow, Sheppard Wayte & Carruth, Marshall C. Whitney and Randall H. Romero for Defendant and Appellant, Thomas C. Fallgatter.
Baker, Manock & Jensen, Donald R. Fischbach and Olga A. Balderama for Defendants and Appellants Klein, DeNatale, Goldner, Cooper, Rosenlieb & Kimball.
Alborg, Veiluva & Epstein and Michael Veiluva for Plaintiffs and Respondents Stewart Title of California and Stewart Title Guaranty Company.
Cunningham & Treadwell and James H. Treadwell for Plaintiff and Respondent, Prudential Insurance Company of America.
-ooOoo-
This is an appeal from an order denying a request for attorney fees after judgment was entered in favor of attorney Thomas Fallgatter and his law firm, Klein, DeNatale, Goldner, Cooper, Rosenlieb and Kimball, LLP (Klein DeNatale) (collectively, appellants). The judgment terminated an action brought by Stewart Title Guaranty Company, Stewart Title of California (collectively Stewart) and Prudential Insurance Company of America (Prudential) (collectively respondents), and followed the trial court's grant of appellants' motion for summary judgment on respondents' fifth amended complaint (complaint). The complaint contained causes of action for slander of title, negligence in recording documents affecting respondents' interests in property, fraudulent transfer of property, violation of the Fraudulent Transfer Act (Civ. Code,[1] § 3439 et. seq.), conspiracy to fraudulently transfer property, fraud, constructive trust and indemnity.
After entry of judgment, appellants made a motion for attorney fees pursuant to section 1717. Appellants asserted they were entitled to fees because respondents, based upon a fee clause in a certain deed of trust, had themselves alleged in the complaint a right to fees as an element of actual damages. Appellants also argued they were entitled to fees because the trial court found that the fees respondents claimed as damages were â€
