Planning Partners Int’l, LLC v. QED, Inc., 2013CO43 (July 1, 2013)

“I’ve lived with this case since I’ve been here in January, and I am very much aware of the protracted convoluted history this cases possesses [sic]” – The Trial Court. Plaintiff (PPI) entered into an Agreement to provide services to Defendant (QED). PPI later loaned money to QED pursuant to a promissory note. The Note required QED to pay reasonable costs and fees that PPI might incur “in connection with the enforcement of” the promissory note. PPI later sued for breach of the note and QED counterclaimed for breach of the Agreement. They both win. The trial court awarded fees to PPI, but did not apportion them. The court of appeals held it should have. The Court disagreed, rejecting a rule requiring proportional diminishment of fees when the defendant recovers on a counterclaim. Rather, trial courts may apportion fees, but if the contract does not require apportionment, it need not do so.

http://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2011/11SC961.pdf

http://www.cobar.org/opinions/opinion.cfm?opinionid=9012&courtid=2

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under Contracts

Brief this Case

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s