La Carriere v. Greene, 39 Cal. App. 5th 270

In 1997 Greene loaned Carriere $175,000; Carriere executed a promissory note (with an attorney-fees clause) and a deed of trust naming Greene's trust and consulting company. Interest was 14.5% and loan matured in 2008.
In 2012 Carriere sued to void the Note and Trust Deed; Greene cross-complained for breach of the Note. After a 4-day bench trial (2015) the court dismissed Carriere’s claims, found Greene prevailed on his cross-complaint but that some interest was usurious, and entered judgment for Greene for $150,329.21.
The trial court awarded Greene $123,975 in contractual attorney fees under the Note and declared him the prevailing party for purposes of Civ. Code § 1717.
While appeals were pending Greene argued calculation of damages; Carriere paid the judgment and fees, Greene executed an acknowledgment of satisfaction, and Greene voluntarily dismissed his appeal after the Court of Appeal issued an OSC questioning waiver.
Carriere then moved in the trial court for attorney fees incurred on Greene’s appeal under Civ. Code § 1717 (and alternatively sanctions under CCP § 128.5). The trial court awarded Carriere $67,238 in fees. Greene appealed that fee award.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Carriere is entitled to contractual attorney fees under Civ. Code § 1717 for fees incurred on Greene’s appeal/post-judgment proceedings	Carriere: She prevailed on appeal and post-judgment matters and remittitur awarded costs on appeal; thus she is prevailing party for those proceedings and entitled to fees under the Note and § 1717	Greene: Trial court already found him the prevailing party in the lawsuit; appeal and post-judgment steps are part of same action, so § 1717 fees belong to Greene	Reversed: § 1717 awards are determined by who prevailed in the lawsuit as a whole; Greene recovered greater relief and remains the sole prevailing party entitled to contractual fees, so Carriere is not entitled to fees under § 1717
Whether Carriere may recover fees as sanctions under CCP § 128.5 for Greene’s allegedly frivolous appeal	Carriere: Alternatively seeks fees as sanctions because Greene’s appeal was moot/frivolous after he accepted payment and executed satisfaction	Greene: Trial court did not find sanctions warranted; appeal was not totally without merit given authority that collecting judgment and filing satisfaction may not always moot an appeal	Denied: Trial court did not rule under § 128.5; the appellate court will not substitute its discretion and additionally finds Carriere failed to show the appeal was totally without merit; appeal-sanction power lies primarily with reviewing courts

Butler-Rupp v. Lourdeaux, 154 Cal.App.4th 918 (discusses fee recovery only by contract or statute)
Sessions Payroll Mgmt., Inc. v. Noble Constr. Co., 84 Cal.App.4th 671 (standard of review for legal basis of fee awards)
Frog Creek Partners, LLC v. Vance Brown, Inc., 206 Cal.App.4th 515 (only one prevailing party for § 1717 in a given lawsuit)
DisputeSuite.com, LLC v. Scoreinc.com, 2 Cal.5th 968 (fees under § 1717 awarded to party who prevailed on contract overall)
Roberts v. Packard, Packard & Johnson, 217 Cal.App.4th 822 (§ 1717 contemplates a single prevailing party)
Wood v. Santa Monica Escrow Co., 176 Cal.App.4th 802 (appeal/post-trial steps are part of same action for § 1717 purposes)
Mustachio v. Great Western Bank, 48 Cal.App.4th 1145 (distinguishing appellate costs from contractual fee determinations)
Heacock v. Ivorette-Texas, Inc., 20 Cal.App.4th 1665 (accepting judgment payment and filing satisfaction does not automatically bar appeal)
Olson Partnership v. Gaylord Plating Lab, Inc., 226 Cal.App.3d 235 (trial court's discretion under § 128.5)
Cravens v. State Bd. of Equalization, 52 Cal.App.4th 253 (limits on accepting late dismissals when summary judgment imminent)