Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
The fan who originally gloved and then fought to keep Barry Bonds’ 73rd home run baseball may still owe his former attorney more than what the ball fetched at auction, a California appeal court ruled May 24. In an unpublished opinion, the 1st District Court of Appeal left untouched a preliminary injunction obtained by Alex Popov’s former lawyer, Martin Triano, that prevented Popov from spending the ball’s proceeds until Popov paid Triano a $473,530 legal bill. Triano’s attorney, Jonathan Arons, said he was not surprised with the court’s opinion because of comments made from the bench during oral arguments. “[The justices] were not sympathetic at all,” Arons said. “We just wish they had gone a little bit further and ruled on the issue of the contract, but we understand why they didn’t.” Both Triano and Popov have different accounts of the legal contract Popov signed when he hired Triano as his attorney in 2001, Justice Stuart Pollak wrote in a seven-page opinion in Triano v. Popov, A106857. “The injunction reasonably protects the status quo and permits resolution of these factual and legal issues in an orderly manner,” Pollak wrote. Justices William McGuiness and Carol Corrigan concurred. Popov claimed he caught Bonds’ ball, but was stripped of it amid a crush of fans that included Patrick Hayashi, who emerged from the fracas with the collectors’ item. Three years ago, in Popov v. Hayashi, 400545, a San Francisco Superior Court judge decided Popov and Hayashi both had rights to the ball and ordered it to be sold. It went for $450,000 at an auction — $23,000 less than Popov’s legal bill. It’s not the only reason why Triano may have trouble collecting. The trial record “indicates that Popov is insolvent,” Pollak wrote. Popov’s attorney, Joel Belway of San Francisco, declined comment. Triano is continuing to seek legal fees from Popov in a related suit now in arbitration. A status conference in the case, Triano v. Popov, 3503194, is scheduled for next week in superior court. In 2003, Triano obtained a temporary restraining order requiring Popov to put his share of proceeds from the ball in an interest-bearing account until the fee dispute was resolved. Last year, Popov moved to dissolve the preliminary injunction on the grounds that his 2001 agreement with Triano was void because Triano never gave him a copy after it was executed.

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.