de la Cuesta v. Benham, 193 Cal. App. 4th 1287 (2011)

Citation: de la Cuesta v. Benham, 193 Cal. App. 4th 1287 (2011)
Parent Document: de la Cuesta v. Benham, 193 Cal. App. 4th 1287 (2011)
Jurisdiction: California (state)
Effective Date: 2011-03-29
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/5810133/de-la-cuesta-v-benham/ ↗

Full Text

1,092 chars

It is important to look at what Hsu actually held: There, after a flurry of offers and counteroffers that had not resulted in a deal to sell a house, the would-be buyers sued the erstwhile sellers, claiming that the buyers had indeed accepted a particular counteroffer to buy the house for $297,000. The buyers lost when the trial court ruled that a new offer made by the prospective buyers after the purported acceptance extinguished the previous counteroffer for $297,000; even so, the trial court denied the winning (but now absolved of any obligation to perform) “sellers” their attorney fees, albeit not giving any explanation. On appeal, the intermediate appellate court affirmed, reasoning that under an abuse of discretion standard the erstwhile sellers had failed to discuss “ ‘all of the pertinent facts in the record’ ” which would bear on the “ ‘issue of abuse of discretion.’ ” (Hsu, supra, 9 Cal.4th at p. 870.) But the Supreme Court reversed, holding that the sellers were entitled to their fees because they had obtained a “ ‘simple, unqualified win.’ ” (Id. at pp. 876, 877.)

Other Sections in This Document (49)

Full Text