Management VI Properties v. Greenberg-Gale 02:26:2007
Management VI Properties v
Management VI Properties v. Greenberg-Gale
Filed 1/31/07 Management VI Properties v. Greenberg-Gale CA4/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
Fingal, Fahrney & Clark and Richard L. Fahrney II for Defendant and Respondent.
* * *
I. INTRODUCTION
When is a â€
Description
When is a "party" a "party?" As we did in the prior related appeal, Gale v. Superior Court (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1388, court refer to the "parties" in this appeal, that is, Lee Gale (including to the degree he is indistinguishable from his living trust) as "Husband" and his erstwhile wife, Laura Gale (now Greenberg-Gale), as "Wife." This appeal, however, involves another, er, ''party," namely Husband's holding company, Management VI Properties, LLC, which challenges the postjudgment denial of an attorney fee order after a successful prosecution of a civil slander of title action against Wife in the wake of the prior related (family law) appeal. The attorney fee motion turned on whether Management VI is a "party," as the word is used in the attorney fee clause of Management VI's operating agreement, and on that score court affirm the trial court, concluding the company itself is not a "party" as the word is used in that clause. The operating agreement is plain that the only parties to the agreement itself are Husband's living trust and Wife.
