Kwp Financial I, Successor-by-assignment Toplaintiffs-appellees William S. Lund and Bank Ofnewport, Plaintiff-c Ross-defendant-appellee, v. Donald H. Albrecht, Defendant-counter-claimant-appellant, v. Timothy R. Olson, Cross-defendant-appellee, 139 F.3d 905 (9th Cir. 1998)

MEMORANDUM^* 

Donald H. Albrecht appeals pro se the district court's summary judgment in favor of KWP Financial I ("judgment-creditor"), in an action alleging that Albrecht breached a contract regarding the enforcement of an underlying judgment against Albrecht for withholding partnership funds. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U .S.C. § 1291. We review a grant of summary judgment de novo, see Bagdadi v. Nazar, 84 F.3d 1194, 1197 (9th Cir. 1996), and we affirm.

Albrecht contends that the district court erred by concluding that the contract for forbearance fees and attorneys' fees did not violate California usury law. This contention lacks merit.

The agreement between the judgment-creditor and Albrecht involved forbearance and attorneys' fees that Albrecht agreed to pay so that the judgment-creditor would postpone the execution sale of Albrecht's property to satisfy the judgment. The district court correctly concluded that California usury law was inapplicable here because Albrecht and the judgment-creditor entered into a separate and valid contract regarding enforcement of the judgment. Cf. Ghirardo v. Antonioli, 8 Cal. 4th 791, 35 Cal. Rptr. 2d 418, 883 P.2d 960, 968, 971 (Cal.1994) (in bank) (holding that agreement to extend time to repay note to avoid foreclosure was not subject to usury law).¹ 

Albrecht contends that the district court erred by requiring Albrecht to pay attorneys' fees because the attorneys' fees billing records were not timely provided and the amounts were unreasonable. We disagree.

The contract provided that Albrecht " [would] be given the statements and billing details in respect of the attorney fees and cost provisions in sufficient detail to allow [him] to make a determination of reasonable attorneys fees and costs in respect of the enforcement of judgment." It is undisputed that the judgment-creditor provided the records on May 22, 1992. Because the judgment-creditor fulfilled the condition precedent of providing the attorneys' fees bills, Albrecht was not excused from performing his obligations under the contract. See Gonsalves v. Hodgson, 38 Cal. 2d 91, 237 P.2d 656, 661 (Cal.1951) (in bank). Moreover, Albrecht's conclusory allegations that the fees are unreasonable does not raise a triable issue of fact. See Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989).

Accordingly, the district court properly granted summary judgment in favor of the judgment-creditor. See Bagdadi, 84 F.3d at 1197.

AFFIRMED.²