American rule in California

2025Tenants do not take a different position on appeal, so we assume without deciding that Trope applies to a motion for attorney’s fees under section 1942.5. 6 spouse-attorney’s legal services so long as there is an attorney-client relationship and the attorney’s fees are authorized by statute.” Rather than extract this “bright-line rule,” the court read this portion of the opinion as merely stating that “on the then-existing record . . . the trial court failed to consider the conditions on which the [attorney-spouse] agreed to represent her [nonattorney] spouse.” DISCUSSION A. Legal Framework “C

2025Tenants do not take a different position on appeal, so we assume without deciding that Trope applies to a motion for attorney’s fees under section 1942.5. 6 spouse-attorney’s legal services so long as there is an attorney-client relationship and the attorney’s fees are authorized by statute.” Rather than extract this “bright-line rule,” the court read this portion of the opinion as merely stating that “on the then-existing record . . . the trial court failed to consider the conditions on which the [attorney-spouse] agreed to represent her [nonattorney] spouse.” DISCUSSION A. Legal Framework “C

2026Governing Principles and Standard of Review A. Statutory Framework – Attorney Fees “Under the American rule, each party to a lawsuit ordinarily pays its own attorney fees. [Citation.] Code of Civil Procedure section 1021, which codifies this rule, provides: ‘Except as attorney’s fees are specifically provided for by statute, the measure and mode of compensation of attorneys and counselors at law is left to the agreement, express or implied, of the parties . . . .’ In other words, section 1021 permits parties to ‘ “contract out” of the American rule’ by executing an agreement that allocates att

2026Governing Principles and Standard of Review A. Statutory Framework – Attorney Fees “Under the American rule, each party to a lawsuit ordinarily pays its own attorney fees. [Citation.] Code of Civil Procedure section 1021, which codifies this rule, provides: ‘Except as attorney’s fees are specifically provided for by statute, the measure and mode of compensation of attorneys and counselors at law is left to the agreement, express or implied, of the parties . . . .’ In other words, section 1021 permits parties to ‘ “contract out” of the American rule’ by executing an agreement that allocates att

2022As the California Supreme Court has explained, equitable indemnification “‘is not automatically available . . . for all tortfeasors who injure the same plaintiff.’” (Western Steamship Lines, Inc. v. San Pedro Peninsula Hospital (1994) 8 Cal.4th 100, 109 .) “[I]irrespective of the equities between or among multiple tortfeasors, the right is subject to qualification, and countervailing considerations may limit recovery.” (Ibid.) “[C]ourts have long recognized that ‘the doctrine is not available where it would operate against public policy. [Citation.]” (Id. at pp. 109-110.) One such policy is th

2021The claim that Mai made here—that she was forced to procure the services of an attorney to defend herself in the Fike suit as a result of Robinson’s fraud—falls into one of these limited categories known as the “tort of another” theory.2 While such doctrines are sometimes described as exceptions to the general “American rule” that each party pays for their own attorney’s fees (see, e.g., Gray v. Don Miller & Associates, Inc. (1984) 35 Cal.3d 498, 505 ; Flyer’s Body Shop Profit Sharing Plan v. Ticor 2 The tort of another doctrine allows for the recovery of attorney’s fees as damages when a plai

2026Rather, ‘[u]nder what is known as the “American rule,” each party to a lawsuit must ordinarily pay his or her own attorney fees.’ ” (Riverside Mining Limited v. Quality Aggregates (2024) 104 Cal.App.5th 269, 275.) There is an exception, however, “when the party entitled to 11 costs has a legal basis, independent of the cost statutes and grounded in an agreement, statute, or other law, upon which to claim recovery of attorney fees.” (Santisas, supra, 17 Cal.4th at p. 606; see Code Civ.

2026Rather, ‘[u]nder what is known as the “American rule,” each party to a lawsuit must ordinarily pay his or her own attorney fees.’ ” (Riverside Mining Limited v. Quality Aggregates (2024) 104 Cal.App.5th 269 , 275.) There is an exception, however, “when the party entitled to 11 costs has a legal basis, independent of the cost statutes and grounded in an agreement, statute, or other law, upon which to claim recovery of attorney fees.” (Santisas, supra, 17 Cal.4th at p. 606 ; see Code Civ.

2025DISCUSSION A. Applicable Legal Principles and Standard of Review “California generally follows what is commonly referred to as the ‘American Rule,’ which provides that each party to a lawsuit must ordinarily pay his or her own attorney fees.” (Tract 19051 Homeowners Assn. v. Kemp (2015) 60 Cal.4th 1135, 1142 ; accord, Mountain Air Enterprises, LLC v. Sundowner Towers, LLC (2017) 3 Cal.5th 744, 751 (Mountain Air).) This rule is codified as section 1021; however, that statute also “permits parties to ‘ “contract out” of the American rule’ by executing an agreement that 5 allocates attorney fees.

2025DISCUSSION A. Applicable Legal Principles and Standard of Review “California generally follows what is commonly referred to as the ‘American Rule,’ which provides that each party to a lawsuit must ordinarily pay his or her own attorney fees.” (Tract 19051 Homeowners Assn. v. Kemp (2015) 60 Cal.4th 1135, 1142 ; accord, Mountain Air Enterprises, LLC v. Sundowner Towers, LLC (2017) 3 Cal.5th 744, 751 (Mountain Air).) This rule is codified as section 1021; however, that statute also “permits parties to ‘ “contract out” of the American rule’ by executing an agreement that 5 allocates attorney fees.

2026The Supreme Court was careful in the rest of its opinion to distinguish between jury “fees” and juror expenses in the form of “per diem” allowances and “mileage.” (See Williams, supra, 150 Cal. at pp. 717―720.) In our view, the failure to say “attorney fees” when referring to the payment of attorney fees would be a glaring and inexplicable omission by our high court in light of California’s adoption of the “ ‘American rule,’ ” at the time of its founding, “under which each party to a lawsuit ordinarily must pay his or her own attorney fees.” (Musaelian v. Adams (2009) 45 Cal.4th 512, 516 .) On

2025Basis for Award of Attorney Fees “California follows the ‘American rule,’ under which each party to a lawsuit ordinarily must pay his or her own attorney fees. [Citations.] Code of Civil Procedure section 1021 codifies the rule, providing that the measure and mode of attorney compensation are left to the agreement of the parties ‘[e]xcept as attorney’s fees are specifically provided for by statute.’” (Musaelian v. Adams (2009) 45 Cal.4th 512, 516 .) “Code of Civil 21 Procedure section 1033.5 provides, in subdivision (a)(10), that attorney fees are ‘allowable as costs under [Code of Civil Proce

2021It is pure equity, there are no statutes involved.” 4“Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5 codified the private attorney general theory.” (Mejia v. City of Los Angeles (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 151, 157, fn. 4 .) 6 “[T]he so-called ‘common fund’ exception to the American rule regarding the award of attorneys fees . . . , is grounded in ‘the historic power of equity to permit . . . a party preserving or recovering a fund for the benefit of others in addition to himself, to recover his costs, including his attorneys’ fees, from the fund of property itself . . . .’” (Serrano v. Priest (1977) 20 Ca

2021It is pure equity, there are no statutes involved.” 4“Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5 codified the private attorney general theory.” (Mejia v. City of Los Angeles (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 151, 157, fn. 4 .) 6 “[T]he so-called ‘common fund’ exception to the American rule regarding the award of attorneys fees . . . , is grounded in ‘the historic power of equity to permit . . . a party preserving or recovering a fund for the benefit of others in addition to himself, to recover his costs, including his attorneys’ fees, from the fund of property itself . . . .’” (Serrano v. Priest (1977) 20 Ca

2026Legal framework “An important exception to the American rule that litigants are to bear their own attorney fees is found in [S]ection 1021.5,” which “‘codifi[es] . . . the private attorney general doctrine of attorney fees developed in prior judicial decisions. [Citation.]’” (Graham v. DaimlerChrysler Corp. (2004) 34 Cal.4th 553, 565 , fn. omitted.) Section 1021.5 provides, in relevant part: “Upon motion, a court may award attorneys’ fees to a successful party against one or more opposing parties in any action which has resulted in the enforcement of an important right affecting the public int

2026Legal framework “An important exception to the American rule that litigants are to bear their own attorney fees is found in [S]ection 1021.5,” which “‘codifi[es] . . . the private attorney general doctrine of attorney fees developed in prior judicial decisions. [Citation.]’” (Graham v. DaimlerChrysler Corp. (2004) 34 Cal.4th 553, 565 , fn. omitted.) Section 1021.5 provides, in relevant part: “Upon motion, a court may award attorneys’ fees to a successful party against one or more opposing parties in any action which has resulted in the enforcement of an important right affecting the public int

2025“California follows what is commonly referred to as the American rule, which provides that each party to a lawsuit must ordinarily pay his own attorney fees. [Citations.] The Legislature codified the American rule in 1872 when it enacted 7 Code of Civil Procedure section 1021, which states in pertinent part that ‘Except as attorney’s fees are specifically provided for by statute, the measure and mode of compensation of attorneys and counselors at law is left to the agreement, express or implied, of the parties. . . .’ (See, e.g., Bruno v. Bell (1979) 91 Cal.App.3d 776, 781 [American rule codif

2025“California follows what is commonly referred to as the American rule, which provides that each party to a lawsuit must ordinarily pay his own attorney fees. [Citations.] The Legislature codified the American rule in 1872 when it enacted 7 Code of Civil Procedure section 1021, which states in pertinent part that ‘Except as attorney’s fees are specifically provided for by statute, the measure and mode of compensation of attorneys and counselors at law is left to the agreement, express or implied, of the parties. . . .’ (See, e.g., Bruno v. Bell (1979) 91 Cal.App.3d 776, 781 [American rule codif

2025Background Law “California follows what is commonly referred to as the American rule, which provides that each party to a lawsuit must ordinarily pay his own attorney fees.” (Trope v. Katz (1995) 11 Cal.4th 274, 278 (Trope).) The American rule is codified in 42 section 1021: “Except as attorney’s fees are specifically provided for by statute, the measure and mode of compensation of attorneys and counselors at law is left to the agreement, express or implied, of the parties; but parties to actions or proceedings are entitled to their costs, as hereinafter provided.” “[T]here is a sharp demarcat

2025Background Law “California follows what is commonly referred to as the American rule, which provides that each party to a lawsuit must ordinarily pay his own attorney fees.” (Trope v. Katz (1995) 11 Cal.4th 274, 278 (Trope).) The American rule is codified in 42 section 1021: “Except as attorney’s fees are specifically provided for by statute, the measure and mode of compensation of attorneys and counselors at law is left to the agreement, express or implied, of the parties; but parties to actions or proceedings are entitled to their costs, as hereinafter provided.” “[T]here is a sharp demarcat

2017C Nonetheless, the California Supreme Court has ‘“recognized an exception to be applied in cases where all three [section 1021.5] factors are *161 satisfied, but the party from whom fees are sought ‘is not the type of party on whom private attorney general fees were intended to be imposed.’ ” (Serrano, supra, 52 Cal.4th at p. 1027 , quoting Joshua S., supra, 42 Cal.4th at p. 953 .) Under this exception, “a section 1021.5 fee award may not be imposed on a litigant who did nothing to adversely affect the public interest.” (Serrano, at p. 1020, citing Joshua S., at p. 958.) In explicating this ex

2017C Nonetheless, the California Supreme Court has ‘“recognized an exception to be applied in cases where all three [section 1021.5] factors are *161 satisfied, but the party from whom fees are sought ‘is not the type of party on whom private attorney general fees were intended to be imposed.’ ” (Serrano, supra, 52 Cal.4th at p. 1027 , quoting Joshua S., supra, 42 Cal.4th at p. 953 .) Under this exception, “a section 1021.5 fee award may not be imposed on a litigant who did nothing to adversely affect the public interest.” (Serrano, at p. 1020, citing Joshua S., at p. 958.) In explicating this ex

2013(Cassim, supra, 33 Cal.4th at p. 806 ; see Brandt, supra, 37 Cal.3d at p. 817 .) However, the California Supreme Court has placed certain critical limitations on the recovery of Brandt fees, which is an exception to the "American rule" generally requiring each party to a litigation to pay its own attorney's fees. ( Cassim, supra, at p. 806 .) First, this exception is intended to be a limited one, and the insured may recover only those fees "attributable to the attorney's efforts to obtain the rejected payment due on the insurance contract." ( Brandt, supra, at p. 819 .) Second, an essential pr

2013(Cassim, supra, 33 Cal.4th at p. 806 ; see Brandt, supra, 37 Cal.3d at p. 817 .) However, the California Supreme Court has placed certain critical limitations on the recovery of Brandt fees, which is an exception to the "American rule" generally requiring each party to a litigation to pay its own attorney's fees. ( Cassim, supra, at p. 806 .) First, this exception is intended to be a limited one, and the insured may recover only those fees "attributable to the attorney's efforts to obtain the rejected payment due on the insurance contract." ( Brandt, supra, at p. 819 .) Second, an essential pr

2026Governing Principles and Standard of Review A. Statutory Framework – Attorney Fees “Under the American rule, each party to a lawsuit ordinarily pays its own attorney fees. [Citation.] Code of Civil Procedure section 1021, which codifies this rule, provides: ‘Except as attorney’s fees are specifically provided for by statute, the measure and mode of compensation of attorneys and counselors at law is left to the agreement, express or implied, of the parties . . . .’ In other words, section 1021 permits parties to ‘ “contract out” of the American rule’ by executing an agreement that allocates att

2026Governing Principles and Standard of Review A. Statutory Framework – Attorney Fees “Under the American rule, each party to a lawsuit ordinarily pays its own attorney fees. [Citation.] Code of Civil Procedure section 1021, which codifies this rule, provides: ‘Except as attorney’s fees are specifically provided for by statute, the measure and mode of compensation of attorneys and counselors at law is left to the agreement, express or implied, of the parties . . . .’ In other words, section 1021 permits parties to ‘ “contract out” of the American rule’ by executing an agreement that allocates att

2014The tort of another doctrine holds that “[a] person who through the tort of another has been required to act in the protection of his interests by bringing or defending an action against a third person is entitled to recover compensation for the reasonably necessary loss of time, attorney’s fees, and other expenditures thereby suffered or incurred.” (Prentice v. North American Title Guaranty Corp. (1963) 59 Cal.2d 618, 620 [ 30 Cal.Rptr. 821 , 381 P.2d 645 ] (Prentice).) The tort of another doctrine is not really an exception to the American rule, but simply “an application of the usual measur

2014The tort of another doctrine holds that “[a] person who through the tort of another has been required to act in the protection of his interests by bringing or defending an action against a third person is entitled to recover compensation for the reasonably necessary loss of time, attorney’s fees, and other expenditures thereby suffered or incurred.” (Prentice v. North American Title Guaranty Corp. (1963) 59 Cal.2d 618, 620 [ 30 Cal.Rptr. 821 , 381 P.2d 645 ] (Prentice).) The tort of another doctrine is not really an exception to the American rule, but simply “an application of the usual measur

2008In evaluating Sharon's claim, we are mindful that section 1021.5 is an exception to the general rule in California, commonly referred to as the American rule and codified in section 1021, that each party to a lawsuit must ordinarily pay his or her own attorney fees. ( Trope v. Katz (1995) 11 Cal.4th 274, 278-279 , . 45 Cal. Rptr.2d 241 , 902 P.2d 259 .) In support of the American rule is the argument "that since litigation is at best uncertain one should not be penalized for merely defending or prosecuting a lawsuit, and that the poor might be unjustly discouraged from instituting actions to v

2008In evaluating Sharon's claim, we are mindful that section 1021.5 is an exception to the general rule in California, commonly referred to as the American rule and codified in section 1021, that each party to a lawsuit must ordinarily pay his or her own attorney fees. ( Trope v. Katz (1995) 11 Cal.4th 274, 278-279 , . 45 Cal. Rptr.2d 241 , 902 P.2d 259 .) In support of the American rule is the argument "that since litigation is at best uncertain one should not be penalized for merely defending or prosecuting a lawsuit, and that the poor might be unjustly discouraged from instituting actions to v

2015General Legal Principles Regarding Attorney’s Fees under Section 1021.5 “[S]ection 1021.5 is an exception to the general rule in California, commonly referred to as the American rule . . . , that each party to a lawsuit must ordinarily pay his or her own attorney fees. [Citation.]” (Adoption of Joshua S. (2008) 42 Cal.4th 945, 954 (Joshua S.).) “A court may award attorney fees under section 1021.5 only if the statute’s requirements are satisfied.” (Vasquez v. State of California (2008) 45 Cal.4th 243, 250 (Vasquez).) Section 1021.5 authorizes an award attorney’s fees to a “successful party aga

2015General Legal Principles Regarding Attorney’s Fees under Section 1021.5 “[S]ection 1021.5 is an exception to the general rule in California, commonly referred to as the American rule . . . , that each party to a lawsuit must ordinarily pay his or her own attorney fees. [Citation.]” (Adoption of Joshua S. (2008) 42 Cal.4th 945, 954 (Joshua S.).) “A court may award attorney fees under section 1021.5 only if the statute’s requirements are satisfied.” (Vasquez v. State of California (2008) 45 Cal.4th 243, 250 (Vasquez).) Section 1021.5 authorizes an award attorney’s fees to a “successful party aga

2015General Legal Principles Regarding Attorney’s Fees under Section 1021.5 “[S]ection 1021.5 is an exception to the general rule in California, commonly referred to as the American rule . . . , that each party to a lawsuit must ordinarily pay his or her own attorney fees. [Citation.]” (Adoption of Joshua S. (2008) 42 Cal.4th 945, 954 (Joshua S.).) “A court may award attorney fees under section 1021.5 only if the statute’s requirements are satisfied.” (Vasquez v. State of California (2008) 45 Cal.4th 243, 250 (Vasquez).) Section 1021.5 authorizes an award attorney’s fees to a “successful party aga

2015General Legal Principles Regarding Attorney’s Fees under Section 1021.5 “[S]ection 1021.5 is an exception to the general rule in California, commonly referred to as the American rule . . . , that each party to a lawsuit must ordinarily pay his or her own attorney fees. [Citation.]” (Adoption of Joshua S. (2008) 42 Cal.4th 945, 954 (Joshua S.).) “A court may award attorney fees under section 1021.5 only if the statute’s requirements are satisfied.” (Vasquez v. State of California (2008) 45 Cal.4th 243, 250 (Vasquez).) Section 1021.5 authorizes an award attorney’s fees to a “successful party aga

2026It covers only contract actions, where the theory of the case is breach of contract, and where the contract sued upon itself specifically provides for an award of attorney fees incurred to enforce that contract.” (Xuereb v. Marcus & Millichap, Inc. (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 1338, 1342 (Xuereb); Maynard v. BTI Group, Inc. (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 6 984, 993 (Maynard) [recognizing section 1717’s limited application].) For purposes of section 1717, “the party prevailing on the contract shall be the party who recovered a greater relief in the action on the contract.” (§ 1717, subd. (b)(1).) Fees awarded

2026It covers only contract actions, where the theory of the case is breach of contract, and where the contract sued upon itself specifically provides for an award of attorney fees incurred to enforce that contract.” (Xuereb v. Marcus & Millichap, Inc. (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 1338, 1342 (Xuereb); Maynard v. BTI Group, Inc. (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 6 984, 993 (Maynard) [recognizing section 1717’s limited application].) For purposes of section 1717, “the party prevailing on the contract shall be the party who recovered a greater relief in the action on the contract.” (§ 1717, subd. (b)(1).) Fees awarded

2014We agree and reverse the order denying Serafin their attorney fees from Flynn. i. Serafin Was the Successful Party in This Case “Section 1021.5 provides, in pertinent part, that ‘[u]pon motion, a court may award attorneys’ fees to a successful party . . . in any action which has resulted in the enforcement of an important right affecting the public interest if . . . a significant benefit . . . has been conferred on the general public . . . .’ Section 1021.5 is one of many ‘statutory exceptions’ that authorize a trial court to deviate from the generally applicable ‘American rule’ that each part

2014We agree and reverse the order denying Serafin their attorney fees from Flynn. i. Serafin Was the Successful Party in This Case “Section 1021.5 provides, in pertinent part, that ‘[u]pon motion, a court may award attorneys’ fees to a successful party . . . in any action which has resulted in the enforcement of an important right affecting the public interest if . . . a significant benefit . . . has been conferred on the general public . . . .’ Section 1021.5 is one of many ‘statutory exceptions’ that authorize a trial court to deviate from the generally applicable ‘American rule’ that each part

2001Invective of the sort alleged by plaintiff while he and Scherer stood at opposing tables qualifies for constitutional protection. “[O]ur Constitution affords protection to statements made during the course of debate on political issues. [Citations.] In the words of Justice Hugo Black, ‘. . . it is a prized American privilege to speak one’s mind, although not always with perfect good taste, on all public institutions.’ [Citation.]” (Beilenson v. Superior Court, supra, 44 Cal.App.4th at p. 951 , quoting Bridges v. California (1941) 314 U.S. 252, 270-271 [ 62 S.Ct. 190, 197 , 86 L.Ed. 192, 207 ,

2001Invective of the sort alleged by plaintiff while he and Scherer stood at opposing tables qualifies for constitutional protection. “[O]ur Constitution affords protection to statements made during the course of debate on political issues. [Citations.] In the words of Justice Hugo Black, ‘. . . it is a prized American privilege to speak one’s mind, although not always with perfect good taste, on all public institutions.’ [Citation.]” (Beilenson v. Superior Court, supra, 44 Cal.App.4th at p. 951 , quoting Bridges v. California (1941) 314 U.S. 252, 270-271 [ 62 S.Ct. 190, 197 , 86 L.Ed. 192, 207 ,

2018Assn. v. Dalrymple (1991) 232 Cal.App.3d 182 , 187 [ 283 Cal.Rptr. 330 ].) The Legislature codified the American rule in 1872 when it enacted Code of Civil Procedure section 1021, which states in pertinent part that 'Except as attorney's fees are specifically provided for by statute, the measure and mode of compensation of attorneys and counselors at law is left to the agreement, express or implied, of the parties; ...' (See, e.g., Bruno v. Bell (1979) 91 Cal.App.3d 776 , 781 [ 154 Cal.Rptr. 435 ] [American rule codified by Code Civ.

2018Assn. v. Dalrymple (1991) 232 Cal.App.3d 182 , 187 [ 283 Cal.Rptr. 330 ].) The Legislature codified the American rule in 1872 when it enacted Code of Civil Procedure section 1021, which states in pertinent part that 'Except as attorney's fees are specifically provided for by statute, the measure and mode of compensation of attorneys and counselors at law is left to the agreement, express or implied, of the parties; ...' (See, e.g., Bruno v. Bell (1979) 91 Cal.App.3d 776 , 781 [ 154 Cal.Rptr. 435 ] [American rule codified by Code Civ.