Fee Claimant, Two Days Too Late, Allowed to Recoup Substantial Fees Given Uncertainty in Bankruptcy Extension/Tolling Rules. Here is an interesting published decision relating to the deadlines for filing an attorney’s fees motion. The normal deadline, absent stipulation or extension...
Here is an interesting published decision relating to the deadlines for filing an attorney’s fees motion. The normal deadline, absent stipulation or extension by the trial judge, is governed by California Rules of Court, rule 3.1702(b)--the time period for usually filing an appeal (60 days, usually, unless posttrial motions are involved). Here, HOA won a $292,205.20 attorney’s fees award as the prevailing party, but the losing common interest development unit owner appealed, protesting, “Untimely! untimely!”
Owner’s appeal was unsuccessful, but did produce an enlightening opinion discussing deadlines/bankruptcy extension nuances in Lewow v. Surfside III Condominium Owners’ Assn., Inc., Case No. B230595 (2d Dist., Div. 6 Feb. 2, 2012) (certified for publication), authored by Acting Presiding Justice Yegan.
HOA argued that the 60-day period was “tolled” by the Chapter 13 bankruptcy filing by owner, but this was not really the correct basis (although as any appellate attorney can tell you, even an incorrect basis--although the result is right--will carry the day, which was the case here). Neither the automatic stay nor Code of Civil Procedure section 356 “tolled” the running of the 60-day period. However, that was not the end of the analysis by any means. The real issue was whether Bankruptcy Code section 108(c) extended the matter, and it did--but only for the 30-day default extension unless a longer period was required (but nothing indicated that this was the case).
Well, HOA was two days late--yep, 2 days. However, not all was lost. A trial judge has discretion to extend a fee motion filing for “good cause.” Given the trial court did entertain and grant the substantial fee request, good cause was established given the very “complex and debatable” issue of how the Bankruptcy Code tolling provision operated. The lower court’s entertainment of the request showed good cause implicitly, resulting in the affirmance of the $292,205.20. This opinion is worth reading again by any practitioners facing deadlines in all kind of claims in a bankruptcy context.
