Wednesday, July 15, 2026
Page 1
$53,527 Attorney-Fee Award for Obtaining Restraining-Order Not Excessive—C.A.
By a MetNews Staff Writer
An attorney-fee award of $53,527 to a woman who obtained a civil harassment restraining order against her contentious neighbor who was unhappy over an easement she and her husband had on his property—verbally abusing her, brandishing items as weapons, and assaulting her contractor—was not so hefty an amount as to “shock the conscience,” Div. Six of this district’s Court of Appeal held yesterday.
The plaintiff, Melanie Judson, had sought an award of $76,467 but Santa Barbara Superior Court Judge Colleen K. Sterne whittled it down. Justice Hernaldo J. Baltodano authored the unpublished opinion affirming the judgment.
Defendant/appellant Martin Mant, noting that the award followed “a one and one-half day trial in a case in which there was no pre-trial discovery and no law and motion practice,” argued on appeal:
“The award is excessive on its face, particularly where two other parties represented by equally experienced and able counsel incurred less than $ 20,000 each. The fee award represents an impermissible punishment….”
He elaborated that “[a]n award in excess of 260% of the amount charged by equally experienced counsel in the same exact case is so far outside of the bounds of reason that it must be reversed.”
Baltodano wrote:
“The fees awarded here do not ‘shock the conscience.’ The trial court awarded less fees than Judson requested. The record reflects that the court reviewed the fee motion, including billing records, and Tait’s opposition before awarding fees.”
He added:
“Moreover, Tait’s contention that Judson should have incurred the same amount of fees as him lacks legal support.”
The justice said an attorney-fee award will not be set aside unless there is a clear abuse of discretion, and he discerned none.
The case is Judson v. Tait, B346920.
Copyright 2026, Metropolitan News Company