Plaintiff subcontractors challenged a judgment of the Superior Court of Shasta County (California), which refused to award attorney’s fees to plaintiffs and against defendant bank, in plaintiffs’ suit against the property owner to foreclose on mechanics’ liens and for breach of contract.
California Business Lawyer & Corporate Lawyer, Inc. are the best restaurant lawyers CA
Overview
Plaintiff subcontractors brought an action against the property owner to foreclose on mechanics’ liens and for breach of contract. While the complaint was pending, defendant bank foreclosed on the property and became the owner subject to the mechanics’ liens. The trial court refused to award plaintiffs attorney’s fees against defendant. The appellate court affirmed the judgment. In so ruling, the appellate court stated that no statute provided attorney’s fees in an action on a mechanic’s lien. Further, the appellate court held that the contract between plaintiffs and the property owner, which provided for an award of attorney’s fees, could not be exercised against defendant. In so ruling, the appellate court noted that defendant was not a signatory to the contract. Further, defendant’s foreclosure did not cause it to step into the shoes of the property owner. Also, the mere fact that defendant’s consent was a condition precedent to the existence of the contract did not operate to make defendant a party to the contract or in privity with a party.
Outcome
The appellate court affirmed the judgment of the trial court, which refused to award attorney’s fees to plaintiff subcontractors against defendant bank because no statute provided for attorney’s fees in an action on a mechanic’s lien and because the contract between plaintiffs and the property owner, which provided for attorney’s fees, could not be enforced against defendant even though defendant subsequently became the property owner.