This document discusses two separate court cases: 1. The first case involved a sheriff suing defendants to recover expenses incurred while enforcing a writ of attachment on a restaurant owned by defendants. The trial court ruled for the sheriff but an appeals court reversed, finding the defendants' attorneys did not have authority to instruct the sheriff. 2. The second case involved homeowners suing a lender over property inspection fees charged to delinquent borrowers. The trial court granted summary judgment for the lender. An appeals court affirmed, finding the fees did not violate unfair competition law, but the lender was not entitled to attorney fees since that law does not provide for fees awards.

1. For incorporation of your businesscontact us
Procedural Posture
Defendantsfiledsuitagainstthe ownersof arestaurantand causeda writ of attachmentto be issued.
Plaintiff sheriff filedsuitagainstdefendantstorecoverexpenseshe allegedly incurredfordefendants.
Defendantssoughtreview of adecisionbythe DistrictCourtof the SeventeenthJudicial District,Los
AngelesCounty(California),whichenteredjudgmentforthe sheriff anddeniedtheirmotionforanew
trial.For incorporationof your businesscontactus.
Overview
The writ of attachmentcame intothe handsof the sheriff,wholeviedituponthe restaurantandits
stock andfixtures.Subsequently,defendants'attorneysinstructedthe sheriff tokeepthe restaurant
openand to conductitsbusiness,whichinstructionwasobeyedbythe sheriff.The trial courtinstructed
the that if theyfoundthat the sheriff renderedthe servicesandincurredthe expensesfordefendants
and at the requestof theirattorneys,thentheyhadtofindfor the sheriff.The courtheldthatthe
instructionasimproperbecause defendants'attorneyshadnoauthoritytogive the instructionsthey
gave to the sheriff orto bindtheirclientsunderCal.Code Civ.Proc.§ 283 to pay for the sheriff's
expensesinconductingthe business.
Outcome
The court reversedthe trial court'sjudgmentandremandedfora new trial.
Procedural Posture
Plaintiff homeownersappealedfromanorderof the SuperiorCourtof Los AngelesCounty,California,
grantingsummaryjudgmentinfavorof defendantloancompanyinanunfaircompetitionaction.The
lenderappealedfromthe orderdenyingitsrequestforattorneyfees.
Overview
The homeownerschallengedthe lender'spractice of passingthe costof conductingpropertyinspections
to delinquentborrowers,contendingthatthe practice was unlawful,unfair,anddeceptiveunderCal.
Bus.& Prof.Code § 17200, the unfaircompetitionlaw.The homeownersarguedpropertyinspection
feeswere unlawful late chargesthatviolatedprovisionsof California'sCivilandFinancial Codes;the fees
were unfairinthat the utilityof chargingthemtoconsumerswasoutweighedbythe harmto
consumers, theywere unethical,andtheywere notpermittedbythe homeowners'deedof trust;and
the feeswere deceptive.Onreview,the appellate courtheldthatthe lender'spractice didnotviolate
the unfaircompetitionlaw.Eventhoughthe lenderprevailed,it wasnotentitledtoattorneyfees
because the actionwasfundamentallyone broughtunderthe unfaircompetitionlaw,whichlaw didnot
provide foran attorneyfeesawardtothe prevailingparty.
Outcome
The judgmentwasaffirmed.