A recent court decision has reaffirmed the validity of attorney fee awards in a contentious property dispute, rejecting the defendant's claims that the orders were void. The complaint was filed by Coastline RE Holdings Corp. in the Court of Appeal of the State of California, Second Appellate District, Division Six, on September 18, 2024, against Pierrick Brillouet.
The case revolves around a home purchased by Pierrick and Yong C. Kim Brillouet from Alexander Low in 2009. The Brillouets assumed Low’s obligations under a construction loan secured by a deed of trust. This deed included provisions for tenancy at sufferance and attorney fees if legal action was required to enforce its terms. After failing to make payments on the loan post-October 2011, Coastline RE Holdings Corp., which had acquired the lender's interest, initiated a nonjudicial foreclosure sale and subsequently served the Brillouets with a three-day notice to quit when they did not vacate the property.
Following a court trial, Coastline was awarded possession of the property along with $44,760.83 in damages for lost rent and $210,000 in contractual attorneys’ fees. The Brillouets appealed this decision but were unsuccessful; their argument that the attorney fee provision did not apply was dismissed by an appellate court ruling in August 2017.
In January 2018, additional attorneys' fees amounting to $116,781.50 were awarded to Coastline for costs incurred during the appeal process. The Brillouets did not contest this order at that time. However, five years later, they filed a motion to vacate both sets of fee awards on grounds that they were void due to lack of jurisdiction and mischaracterization of the unlawful detainer action as tortious.
The trial court denied this motion based on several legal principles including "law of the case," which binds parties to previous appellate decisions unless substantial injustice or changes in law occur between rulings. The court also noted that agreements subject to unlawful detainer actions can include attorney fee provisions as per Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1032(b), 1033.5(a)(10)(A).
Furthermore, it was determined that there was no manifest misapplication of existing principles nor any intervening change in law that would justify overturning prior judgments. Thus, prevailing party attorneys’ fees awarded to Coastline were upheld as valid and enforceable under contract terms stipulated in the deed of trust.
Representing Coastline RE Holdings Corp., Hal D. Goldflam from Frandzel Robins Bloom & Csato argued successfully against Ronald H. Freshman from Law Offices of Ronald H. Freshman who represented Pierrick Brillouet. The judgment was delivered by Judge Henry J. Walsh with concurrence from Justices Baltodano (author), Yegan (Acting P.J.), and Cody.