Arbitration, Prevailing Party, Section 1717: Trial Court Properly Found That Respondent Did Not Prevail For Fee Recovery Even Though She Did Obtain A Ruling Denying A Petition To Confirm The Arbitration Award And Did Obtain A Vacatur Ruling

The Lower Court’s Discretionary Determination That No One Prevailed Was Affirmed On Appeal.

            In Goraya v. Stephens, Case No. F078335 (5^th Dist. Jan. 3, 2020) (unpublished), property seller and property buyer submitted to arbitration and settled, with the listing agent joined as a party in the arbitration at his own request, eventually obtaining an award for commission and attorney’s fees against property seller.  Seller’s arbitration claims against listing agent were found to lack merit.  Listing agent petitioned to confirm the award, which was opposed, and seller requested to vacate the award against seller.  The lower court refused to confirm the arbitration award and in fact vacated it—results which held up when listing agent’s appeal was dismissed as being untimely.  Seller then filed a motion for attorney’s fees against listing agent based on a contractual fees clause in the listing agreement, with the lower court denying the fee motion because it found that seller was not the prevailing party.

            The fee denial was sustained on appeal.  Under Civil Code section 1717, there was no “clear winner” such that the trial judge’s conclusion that each party had won-loss-tied record of 1-1-1 supported the determination that there was no prevailing party.  Seller then claimed she was entitled to fees under CCP §§ 1293.2 and 1032.  Section 1032 did not yield any definitive result, because both parties prevailed under that statutory provision.