Hunt

Hunt v. Fahnestock

Good Law
1990 Cal. App. LEXIS 489·220 Cal. App. 3d 628·269 Cal. Rptr. 614
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 18, 1990B032806California1,288 words

Opinion

Opinion

Gilbert, J.

Here we hold that in a lawsuit involving several contracts, attorney’s fees pursuant to Civil Code section 1717 may be awarded to the prevailing party on each contract whether or not that party is a prevailing party in the lawsuit.

Plaintiff Robert J. Hunt appeals a judgment awarding attorney’s fees to defendants Joseph and Winona Fahnestock under section 1717. We affirm.

Facts

On February 25, 1985, defendants Joseph and Winona Fahnestock purchased real property on Calle Margarita in Thousand Oaks, California, from plaintiff Robert J. Hunt. The Fahnestocks assumed existing loans of $100,476.47 and executed two promissory notes to Hunt to complete the $129,576.47 purchase price. One promissory note for $15,000 was secured by a junior lien on the Margarita property, and another for $14,100 was secured by a junior lien on another piece of real property owned by the Fahnestocks on Calle Tulipán in Thousand Oaks.

Fourteen months later, the Fahnestocks defaulted on the two promissory notes to Hunt, as well as on the senior loans on the Margarita property. To protect his junior interest, Hunt advanced sums to pay the senior loans in default on the Margarita property. He then…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.