Prevailing Party, Section 1717: Losing Plaintiffs’ Strained Interpretation of Prevailing Party Language In Fees Clause Did Not Disturb Trial Judge’s Award Of Fees And Costs To Prevailing Defendants

$40,202 Was The Fees/Costs Award In Easement Dispute, Reduced From The Requested $79,675 In Fees.

            Defendants/cross-complainants in an easement dispute won on every issue except for cross-complainants” claim that plaintiffs owed them money for utilities, garnering $1,350 for damages for injury to their livestock.  Even though there was no unqualified winner, the trial court in its discretion deemed defendants the prevailing party, awarding $40,000 in attorney’s fees and $202 in costs (reduced from the requested $79,675 in fees).

            The appellate court affirmed in Yerman v. Parker, Case No. C080254 (3d Dist. Nov. 20, 2019) (unpublished).

            There was a “prevailing party” fees clause in the easement agreement, with plaintiffs advancing a rather convoluted argument that they were not the nonprevailing party in light of contractual language saying fees and costs could be recovered from “the nonprevailing party.”  Aside from not accepting this strained interpretation, the Third District concluded that plaintiff’s argument would contravene the “prevailing party” definition in Civil Code section 1717, something the parties cannot do contractually.  (Walker v. Ticor Title Co. of California, 204 Cal.App.4^th 363, 372-373 (2012).) 

            At the outset, there was an argument that plaintiffs’ appeal of the fees award was untimely, but that did not succeed because plaintiff did appeal from the “fixed” fee order—not having to appeal from an earlier judgment which left fees blank and to be determined at a later juncture.

            BLOG OBSERVATION—The lower court venue was none other than Calaveras County, the site of Mark Twain’s tale about the notorious jumping frog!