Siry Investments v. FarkhondehpourAnnotate this Case
Siry filed suit against two of its former business partners for breach of fiduciary duty. After the court issued an opinion in a prior appeal in this case, but before the court's remittitur
issued, the Judicial Council amended California Rules of Court, rule 8.278 to allow the prevailing party on appeal to collect the “net interest expenses incurred” in borrowing
funds for an appeal bond. The court concluded that the trial court did not err by awarding such expenses to the prevailing party in the prior appeal on the basis of the newly amended rule. The court concluded that there is no impermissible retroactivity in this case because the amended version of rule 8.278 is not being applied retroactively at all. Assuming that Siry has a right to advance notice of a change in the rules governing costs on appeal, that notice was adequate. The court rejected Siry's alternative arguments and affirmed the judgment.