In Mayer v. C.W. Driver (2002) 98 Cal.App.4th 48, a partnership assigned its rights in a construction defect lawsuit and all successor and replacement actions to the individual partners.
Those partners appointed a third party entity as their attorney-in-fact and gave it the authority to make all decisions in connection with all further litigation. The attorney-in-fact settled. One of the partners subsequently sued for latent construction defects and lost.
The developer sought attorney fees, but its bid was denied. The partner appealed from the judgment, and the developer cross-appealed the denial of attorney fees. (Mayer, supra, 98 Cal.App.4th at pp. 56-57.)
The Mayer court decided against the partner, holding that he lacked standing.
It also decided against the developer.
According to the Mayer court, the developer could not recover because the partner's action did not qualify as a successor or replacement action. (Id. at pp. 57-59, 62-64.)