Neither Section 1717 Nor CCP § 1021 Permitted Fee Recovery.
In Ruballos v. Ruballos, Case No. B268343 (2d Dist., Div. 8 May 26, 2016) (unpublished), a lease non-signatory prevailed in a nasty lease dispute, based on a fraud-based controversy. The lower court awarded $16,880 in attorney’s fees based on a contractual fees clause.
The appellate court reversed the fee award.
The infirmity was that the recovery was based on a tort (fraud) such that the result was not grounded “on the contract” so as to allow a fee recovery under Civil Code section 1717. In fact, the prevailing party’s own pleadings made the case, because she alleged she was not a party to the lease, but a stranger such that only tort claims were at play. With respect to CCP § 1021 (which is based on the actual fees clause in the lease), it only operated unilaterally in favor of landlord; this was the death knell to recovery under this provision to a party which was not the landlord.