Landlord/Tenant, Prevailing Party, Section 1717: Because Landlord’s Voluntary Dismissal Of An Unlawful Detainer Action Sounded In Contract, Its Dismissal Did Not Entitle Tenant To Attorney’s Fees

Appellate Court Did Discuss When The Action Is Contract Versus Tort, But The Case Did Not Have Tort Holdover Or Ouster Issues.

               In an unlawful detainer case, the nature of the case may determine whether a landlord’s voluntarily dismissal allows the tenant an entitlement to attorney’s fees, which invokes the Santisas principle.  (See Our Leading Case #6.)  Trial and appellate courts tend to look at what is really involved in the action, with that reality often driving the “end result.”

               That “end result” conclusion was at issue in Concord Property Management, Inc. v. Lin, Case No. B331933 (2d Dist., Div. 8 May 22, 2025) (unpublished).  There, a landlord in an unlawful detainer action voluntarily dismissed its complaint after the lower court denied landlord’s motion for summary judgment.  Tenant sought an award of $74,230 in attorney’s fees as the prevailing party, but the lower court determined that the gist of the action was “on a contract” so that the voluntary dismissal did not allow for fee entitlement under Santisas.

               The appellate court agreed that tenant was not entitled to fees.  The gravamen of the action was to bring a forfeiture of the lease (a contractual theory) as opposed to ousting a holdover tenant (a tort). (See Mitchell Land & Improvement Co. v. Ristorante Ferrantelli, Inc., 158 Cal.App.4^th 479, 490; Drybread v. Chipain Chiropractic Corp., 151 Cal.App.4^th 1063, 1076 (2007).)