Maynard v. BTI Group, Inc.
216 Cal. App. 4th 984
Cal. Ct. App.2013Background
- BTI appealing a postjudgment denial of its attorney fees after Maynard recovered a net amount on negligence.
- The parties had a broad attorney fee provision stating the prevailing party in any dispute is entitled to costs and reasonable fees.
- Trial court awarded Maynard her attorney fees; BTI sought fees arguing it prevailed on contract claims under §1717.
- Maynard won on negligence; BTI prevailed on contract claims but not overall; Maynard's net recovery constituted the objective of the suit.
- Court held the broad clause encompassed all disputes and allowed Maynard to recover fees without apportioning between contract and tort claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the fee provision cover noncontractual claims? | Maynard argues broad clause covers any dispute, including tort. | BTI argues fees only to the contract-prevailing party under §1717. | Yes; broad clause covers all disputes, Maynard prevailing overall. |
| Who is the prevailing party when both contract and tort claims exist? | Maynard asserts prevailing party based on net recovery and overall objectives. | BTI asserts prevailing party status follows contract scope under §1717. | Maynard is prevailing party under the broad provision; net recovery governs. |
| Is apportionment of fees required when a broad clause covers multiple claims? | Maynard contends no apportionment is needed when the clause covers all claims. | BTI contends potential need to apportion fees to contract claims. | No apportionment needed; fees awarded under broad provision for all claims. |
Key Cases Cited
- Xuereb v. Marcus & Millichap, Inc., 3 Cal.App.4th 1338 (1992) (allows fee shifting under broad §1021 contracts, permitting tort recovery where contract covers dispute)
- Hsu v. Abbara, 9 Cal.4th 863 (1995) (defines prevailing party on contract; emphasizes substance over form)
- Santisas v. Goodin, 17 Cal.4th 599 (1998) (pragmatic definition of prevailing party when contract allows fee recovery)
- Korech v. Hornwood, 58 Cal.App.4th 1412 (1997) (contractual fee provisions may limit to contract prevailing party; reciprocity via §1717)
- Douglas E. Barnhart, Inc. v. CMC Fabricators, Inc., 211 Cal.App.4th 230 (2012) (assumes contract-based fees; discusses broader outcomes when noncontractual claims exist)
- Frog Creek Partners, LLC v. Vance Brown, Inc., 206 Cal.App.4th 515 (2012) (broad 'prevailing on the contract' concept; fee awards may contemplate overall dispute)
- Cruz v. Ayromloo, 155 Cal.App.4th 1270 (2007) (broad attorney fee clause permits recovery for related disputes arising from contract)
- Myers Building Industries, Ltd. v. Interface Technology, Inc., 13 Cal.App.4th 949 (1993) (fees for disputes arising out of contract may extend beyond breach alone)
- Exxess Electronixx v. Heger Realty Corp., 64 Cal.App.4th 698 (1998) (fee provision covering disputes under contract encompasses tort claims)
- Hasler v. Howard, 130 Cal.App.4th 1168 (2005) (broad fee clauses may cover tort as well as contract actions)