Nash v. Aprea (2023)

Citation: Nash v. Aprea (2023)
Parent Document: Nash v. Aprea (2023)
Jurisdiction: California (state)
Effective Date: 2023-10-03
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/9430076/nash-v-aprea/ ↗

Full Text

764 chars

quoting Sen. Com. on Judiciary, Analysis of Assem. Bill No. 2616
(1991-1992 Reg. Sess.) as amended Aug. 12, 1992, p. 5.) Apria
argues this language shows the merger doctrine did not remove
the contractual limit on attorneys’ fees. However, as the
Supreme Court explained in McQueen, the legislative purpose of
the amendment was to ensure the availability of attorneys’ fees
arising from a contract at the enforcement phase despite the
merger doctrine (not to preserve the specific terms of the
contract). (See McQueen, at pp. 609-610 [the “committee report
noted that the contrast between the Chelios result—contractually
authorized fees could not be recovered for enforcement of the
judgment—and the settled rule that such fees could be recovered
in an appeal”].)

Other Sections in This Document (31)

Full Text