The Pre-Printed Attorney Fee Provision In The Parties’ Lease Option Agreement Was Facially Valid And Enforceable Despite Plaintiffs’ Assertions That The Contract As A Whole Was Not.
In Ramos v. Wallahan, Case No. A157085 (1st Dist., Div. 3 February 26, 2021) (unpublished), cross-complaining landlord defendant was awarded $340,865.22 in Civ. Code § 1717 attorney fees, reduced from $420,265.47 for hourly rates, after prevailing against plaintiffs’ claims and in his cross-complaint stemming from the parties’ Residential Lease With Option to Purchase agreement.
Plaintiffs appealed and the 1/3 DCA affirmed.
Plaintiffs argued that the requirements for an award under section 1717 were not met because only one of the two plaintiffs (a married couple) had signed the agreement, and had assumed the agreement to be only a draft version containing handwritten modifications – not intending to be bound by it. However, the 1/3 DCA found these issues went to the enforceability of the written agreement as a whole, not to the specific attorney fees provision. There were no handwritten modifications to the pre-printed fees provision, and plaintiffs never asserted the fees provision had been modified. Additionally, plaintiffs provided an inadequate record as to their “draft” argument – dooming this contention on appeal.
Finally, the panel found both parties asserted causes of action involving the parties’ agreement, and defendant met the prevailing party criteria set forth by section 1717 as he had obtained an unqualified win on all claims and causes of action.
Comments