Quick Links |
Memorandum of Decision Re: Secured Creditor's Attorney Fees
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
In re
ROSETTI & NICOLAS, No. 91-12096
Debtor.
___________________________/
If any party to this agreement . . . shall bring an action in any court . . . to enforce any covenant of this agreement . . . , it is hereby mutually agreed that the prevailing party shall be entitled to reason- able attorney's fees and all costs and expenses in connection with said action, which sums shall be in- cluded in any judgment or decree entered in such action in favor of the prevailing party. Being forced to rely on a "prevailing party" clause rather than an "appearing in any proceeding clause" raises numerous problems for Blakeslee. For one thing, it means that all fees associated with the lawsuit brought by the trustee must be disallowed because Blakeslee was not the prevailing party in that action. Where a complaint is voluntarily dismissed, there is no prevailing party and no right to recovery of attorneys' fees. D & J, Inc. v. Ferro Corp. (1986) 176 Cal.App.3d 191. Moreover, it is not entirely clear that either a motion for relief from the stay or a motion to compel assumption or rejection of an executory contract is an "action" or, if either is an action, whether Blakeslee was the prevailing party. The court is aware of no case holding that an motion to assume or reject an executory contract is an "action." Section 365(d)(2) of the Code gives the creditor the right to ask the court to set a deadline by which the debtor must exercise its rights. Just because the court granted such a motion does not mean the creditor "prevailed" in an "action" against the debtor. Moreover, the motion was brought to enforce Blakeslee's rights under the Bankruptcy Code, not the agreement. Accordingly, paragraph 19 does not establish a right to attorneys' fees for bringing such a motion. There is more authority for calling a motion for relief from the automatic stay an action against the debtor. For one thing, prior to amendment to the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy procedure in 1984 relief from the stay was obtained by adversary proceeding. For another, some courts have interpreted "action" liberally as including contested matters. See In re Mills, supra, at 418. The court accordingly finds that Blakeslee's motion for relief from the automatic stay was an action to enforce his rights under the agreement and that he prevailed, in that the motion was granted if the trustee did not sell the property and pay off Blakeslee by a certain time. Based on the foregoing analysis, Blakeslee cannot recover most of his attorneys' fees because the term in the agreement which would have given rise to a general right to recovery of all fees was drafted so as to cover only third party actions and cannot, by any reasonable interpretation, be construed as covering bankruptcy proceedings. Blakeslee cannot recover for fees associated with the trustee's lawsuit against him because he was not the prevailing party in that lawsuit. He cannot recover for the costs of bringing a motion to compel assumption or rejection of the agreement, because that motion was not an action and because it was brought to enforce his rights under the Bankruptcy Code, not the agreement. The only action for which Blakeslee can recover his attorneys' fees is his motion for relief from the automatic stay. It appears from the declaration of Blakelee's counsel that approximately $6,000.00 of his fees were incurred in bringing the motion for relief from the automatic stay. The fees for this motion seem reasonable under the circumstances, and they are accordingly found recoverable under section 506(b). The balance of the fees paid through the escrow of $19,040.82 shall be returned to the trustee. Counsel for the trustee shall submit an appropriate form of order forthwith. Dated: December 27, 1993 _______________________ Alan Jaroslovsky U.S. Bankruptcy |

