Wong

Wong v. Thrifty Corp.

Good Law
118 Cal. Rptr. 2d 276·2002 Cal. App. LEXIS 3446·2002 Daily Journal DAR 3445·97 Cal. App. 4th 261·2002 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2872
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 29, 2002No. A094922California1,237 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Reardon, J.

The attorney fee provision at issue in this case provided for payment of reasonable fees to lessor in an enforcement action in which it was “determined” that lessees were in default. Judgment below was entered in favor of appellant Harda Wong, successor lessor under a commercial lease, after he accepted lessees’ 1 Code of Civil Procedure section 998 (section 998) offer to compromise. He challenges the trial court’s denial of his attorney fees, arguing that the contractual fee provision conflicts with the purposes and provisions of Civil Code section 1717 (section 1717). We agree and accordingly reverse the judgment.

*263 I. Background

In June 1979 Rite Aid, as tenant, entered into a 20-year lease with Arthur and Gladys Nearon for retail space in the shopping center located at 122 Peabody Road, Vacaville. Wong ultimately succeeded as lessor under the lease when he purchased the property in 1996.

Rite Aid vacated the premises and in August 1999 the parties’ joint inspection of the property revealed substantial damages. Wong submitted a letter to Rite Aid detailing $73,188.59 in repairs. Upon receiving Rite Aid’s offer of $8,794.09, Wong sued for breach of contract and…

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.