Barez

Background After respondents attempted to cancel their lease, Rank Technology Corporation and its sole shareholder, Barez, sued them for breach of contract and breach of guaranty. Respondents cross-complained for fraudulent inducement and breach of contract. A jury denied relief to both parties, and both then requested attorney fees under section 1717. The trial court, however, determined that neither party had prevailed, and we upheld that ruling on appeal (Barez, et al. v. Ni, et al. (July 31, 2013, H037572) [nonpub opn.]). The respondents in that appeal, now appellants, sought their attorney fees for the appeal, 1 citing the fee provision of the lease. The court’s denial of that motion occasioned this timely appeal. Discussion In most contract actions, a party claiming attorney fees relies on section 1717 to 2 enforce a provision in the contract for attorney fees to the prevailing party. Appellants take a different approach; they attempt to distance themselves from that statute and instead insist that their right to recover is governed exclusively by the language of the attorney fees provision in the lease. According to their reasoning, section 1717 pertains to an entire…