|
3816 After a trial court found a cross claim to be without merit and announced its intention to award costs to the person against whom it had been filed, an agreement regarding the amount of costs to be included in the final judgment did not prevent the judgment from being a termination on the merits that supports a subsequent action for malicious prosecution against the party who filed the meritless cross claim.CitationHMS v LAWYERS TITLE (Agreed Costs) 118 CA4 204 [See: CCP 425.16; Crowley v Katleman 8 C4 666, T/AT 12/94; Casa Herrera v Beydoun 32 C4 336, T/AT 3/04; Ferreira v Gray, Cary 87 CA4 409, T/AT 4/01; Downey Venture v LMI 66 CA4 478, T/AT 10/98; Jarrow v LaMarche 31 C4 728, P/AT 9/03]
|
|
