Procedural Posture

Appellant real estate sellers sought review of an order by the Superior Court of Orange County (California), which denied appellants’ request for attorneys fees in respondent real estate purchasers’ action for specific performance and breach of contract. Appellants contended that Cal. Civ. Code § 1717 required the award of attorneys fees because appellants were the prevailing party in an action involving a contract.

California Business Lawyer & Corporate Lawyer, Inc. is a restaurant attorney

Overview

Respondent real estate purchasers filed a specific performance and breach of contract action against appellant real estate purchasers. Appellants prevailed at trial, but the trial court refused to award attorneys fees to appellants because it concluded that there was no contract. On appeal, appellants contended that they were entitled to attorneys fees under Cal. Civ. Code § 1717 as prevailing parties in a contract action. The court agreed with appellants’ contention. The court found that appellants were entitled to recover attorneys fees pursuant to Cal. Civ. Code § 1717 whether the contract in question was upheld or found to be unenforceable because they prevailed. The right to attorneys fees depended not on the evidence adduced at trial or other proceeding, but on the pleadings, in which respondents alleged in the alternative specific performance or damages for breach of contract. The court concluded that to deny appellants attorneys fees simply because respondents filed a frivolous lawsuit would have been inequitable. Accordingly, the court reversed the order denying attorneys fees.

Outcome

The court reversed the order denying appellant real estate sellers’ request for attorneys fees in respondent real estate purchasers’ action for specific performance and breach of contract. The court found that appellants were entitled to attorneys fees as the prevailing party because respondents’ action sounded in contract, even though the contract was found to be unenforceable.