Damages Were A Little Over $180,000.
Just to illustrate that attorney’s fees under Civil Code section 1717 do not have to be proportional to the awarded compensatory damages, we now post on Pec v. Brackenbury, Case No. A142104 (1st Dist., Div. 1 Sept. 20, 2016) (unpublished).
There, residential property purchasers/plaintiff prevailed on tort claims, but not a contract-based claim, in a case alleging that sellers/defendants failed to make disclosures which resulted in plaintiffs overpaying for the property. The lower court in a bench trial awarded compensatory damages of a little over $180,000 to plaintiffs on tort claims, but rejected the contract claim against defendants. Then, the trial judge awarded plaintiffs $345,539.19 (out of a requested $371,000) in costs and attorney’s fees based on a broadly-worded fees clause in the land sale contract (applying to “any action … arising out of this Agreement” in favor of the prevailing party).
The appellate court affirmed the fee award in plaintiffs’ favor.
The “bottom line” was that the fees clause was broad enough to authorize an award of fees and costs to the plaintiffs prevailing on a claim related to the contract, whether sounding in contract or in tort. Although losing the contract claim, plaintiffs won the “contract-related” tort claims such that fee recovery was justified. (Maynard v. BTI Group, Inc., 216 Cal.App.4th 984, 992, 994-995 (2013).) No apportionment was necessary because the fee claim was inextricably linked to non-fee claims. (Id. at 992.)