Zock, et al. v. Scott J. Esparza, et al
Aug 22, 2014OUTCOME: Judgment in favor of our client.
In 2010, our client, Robert N. Zock, faced foreclosure of his home based on the Defendant, ACME Bail Bonds' insistence that he pay a fee it had agreed to waive. Mr. Zock's family members searched for a ... n attorney--but no one would take the case. Nor would they agree to a reasonable settlement with Mr. Zock. We agreed to take the case and with time running out, filed a complaint and got a restraining order to halt the foreclosure sale of Mr. Zock's home--which he had lived in for over 40 years. After almost two years of litigation, ACME still refused any offer to settle and, in fact, kept raising the amount it expected to be paid to settle the case. A two day bench trial (non-jury) took place in which the judge ruled that Mr. Zock was correct. But the court also awarded ACME about $4,000.00 (an amount we did not contest and offered to pay). The court erroneousy ruled that ACME was the "prevailing party," meaning it was entitled to attorneys' fees. We appealed and the appellate court reversed, ruled that Zock prevailed, negated ACME's attorney fee award, and ordered the trial court to determine Zock's reasonable attorneys' fees. After the case returned to the trial court, the court granted a fee award against ACME of just over $68,000.00. Mr. Zock is over 80 years old and a type 1 diabetic who needs regular dialysis treatments. Had we not taken his case, his home would have been foreclosed on and he would have been evicted, leaving him homeless. The result we achieved keeps him in his home and puts the burden on the wrongful party to pay Mr. Zock's attorneys' fees.
