Dickens v. Lee
| Decision Date | 26 April 1991 |
| Docket Number | No. A050978,A050978 |
| Citation | 230 Cal.App.3d 985,281 Cal.Rptr. 783 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Linda K. DICKENS, et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. Ming LEE, et al., Defendants and Respondents. |
Wayne Marcus Scriven, San Francisco, for plaintiffs and appellants.
Andrew J. Wiegel, Clifford E. Fried, San Francisco, for defendants and respondents.
In this case we hold that where a judicial arbitrator awarded a specific amount of attorney fees but unspecified costs, a judgment on the award was appealable as to the costs but not as to the attorney fees, which could be challenged only by request for trial de novo.
Linda K. Dickens and Stanley A. Davis sued their landlords, Ming and Melanie Lee, alleging 15 causes of action. The case went to mandatory judicial arbitration, which focused on two of the causes of action, breach of the warranty of habitability and wrongful eviction.
The arbitrator found a breach of the warranty of habitability but no wrongful eviction, and awarded compensatory damages of $2,500. The arbitrator also ruled that Dickens and Davis would The arbitrator's award stated that statutory costs were awarded to Dickens and Davis, "provided, however, that the attorneys' fees to be recovered as costs be limited to $1,000.00." In contrast to the amount of attorney fees, the award did not specify the amount of costs.
Neither side requested a trial de novo, and the superior court clerk entered judgment on the arbitrator's award. Dickens and Davis filed a costs memorandum seeking $10,000 in attorney fees and $351 in costs. The Lees moved to tax costs, and the court amended the judgment to award total attorney fees and costs of $1,000. Dickens filed a timely notice of appeal from the amended judgment. 1
Dickens and Davis challenge the award of attorney fees, claiming the court erred by basing the award solely on the amount of compensatory damages and by failing to consider the effort required of their counsel. These issues, however, are not properly before us. A judgment on a judicial arbitration award is nonappealable. (Code Civ.Proc., § 1141.23; Joyce v. Black (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 318, 321, 266 Cal.Rptr. 8.) The only exception is where the arbitrator's award does not specify the amount of recoverable costs. In such a case there can be no request for a trial de novo as to costs, since the court determines costs in the first instance, and thus the portion of the court's judgment awarding costs must be appealable, because otherwise there would be no opportunity for appellate review. (Joyce v. Black, supra, 217 Cal.App.3d at p. 321, 266 Cal.Rptr. 8.) In contrast, if the arbitrator specifies the amount of recoverable costs, the costs portion of the judgment is nonappealable, since a dissatisfied party can request a trial de novo as to costs and subsequently obtain review of the costs award on appeal from the court's de novo judgment. (See id. at p. 322, 266 Cal.Rptr. 8.)
Here, the arbitrator specified the amount of recoverable attorney fees as limited to $1,000, and thus the judgment is nonappealable as to those fees. Appellate review on this point was only available after a trial de novo, which Dickens and Davis did not request. Consequently, the portion of the appeal challenging the award of attorney fees must be dismissed.
In any event, their substantive arguments on attorney fees are meritless. The record does not indicate, as they claim, that the court based the fee award solely on the amount of compensatory damages or failed to consider the efforts required of counsel. Because the record is silent on these points, we must indulge all presumptions in favor of the judgment and conclude there was no such error. (Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564, 86 Cal.Rptr. 65, 468 P.2d 193.) 2
Dickens and Davis also challenge the judgment as to the award of costs. Because the arbitrator did not specify the amount of recoverable costs, the judgment is appealable on this point. (Joyce v. Black, supra, 217 Cal.App.3d at p. 321, 266 Cal.Rptr. 8.)
Dickens and Davis contend the court erred in "deleting" the arbitrator's unspecified costs award because an award . of costs to the prevailing party was mandatory. (See Civ.Code, § 1942.4, subd. (b) [].) But a costs award was not mandatory. Because the judgment was one that could have been rendered in municipal ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kelley v. Bredelis
...Instead, they contend that the defendant is not statutorily entitled to recover attorney fees in any amount. In Dickens v. Lee (1991) 230 Cal.App.3d 985, 281 Cal.Rptr. 783, the court held that "where a judicial arbitrator awarded a specific amount of attorney fees but unspecified costs, a j......
-
Hightower v. Superior Court
...or modification of the original award as was the case in the Elliott & Ten Eyck decision. Hightower also cites Dickens v. Lee (1991) 230 Cal.App.3d 985, 281 Cal.Rptr. 783 as supportive of his position. However, Dickens is a judicial arbitration case and presents no issues arising from, nor ......
-
Penton v. Penton
...untimely and dismissed as purpose of amended judgment was to accurately reflect original determination); Dickens v. Lee, 230 Cal.App.3d 985, 281 Cal.Rptr. 783, 784 (1991) (notice of appeal filed over sixty days after entry of initial judgment was found to be timely as amended judgment subst......
-
Corbin v. Kelly Plating Co. .
...603, 996 P.2d 706 (arbitrators' award could not be judicially corrected to award borrowers their attorney fees); Dickens v. Lee (1991) 230 Cal.App.3d 985, 281 Cal.Rptr. 783 (“If the purpose of judicial arbitration is to avoid traditional litigation, then that avoidance should be as complete......