Monday, January 23, 2012

Rossa v. D.L. Falk Construction, Inc. (Cal. Supreme Ct. - Jan. 23, 2012)

The California Supreme Court is busy.  It can only take a limited number of cases.

But some of 'em are easy.  Like this one.

CCP 917.1 allows you to stay an adverse money judgment by posting a bond.  CRC 8.278 says that if you prevail on appeal, you can recover the premium on that bond as well as the cost to obtain a letter of credit as collateral.

What the "premium" for a bond entails is clear.  Not so the "cost" to obtain a letter of credit.  Are we talking about just application and issuance costs; here, around $1000?  Or do those recoverable costs also include interest charges that you have to incur in your particular case because you have to borrow money in order to deposit sufficient funds to persuade the bank to issue the letter; here, around $100,000?

The trial court held that the latter wasn't included.  As did the Court of Appeal.   The California Supreme Court agrees.  Its opinion is unanimous.  Not a toughie.

Which just proves that persuading the California Supreme Court to grant review is not necessarily a reason to throw a huge party.  It's only half the battle.  Sure, sometimes they grant review to reverse.  But that's not always the case.  Sometimes they grant review just because they're excited to affirm.