CIV § 1717

One-sided attorney fee clauses are reciprocal, CIV § 1717

Makes one-sided attorney fee clauses reciprocal; the prevailing party gets reasonable fees. Court determines prevailing party based on greater relief.

Official text CIV § 1717 — California
  • (a) In any action on a contract, where the contract specifically provides that attorney’s fees and costs, which are incurred to enforce that contract, shall be awarded either to one of the parties or to the prevailing party, then the party who is determined to be the party prevailing on the contract, whether he or she is the party specified in the contract or not, shall be entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees in addition to other costs. Where a contract provides for attorney’s fees, as set forth above, that provision shall be construed as applying to the entire contract, unless each party was represented by counsel in the negotiation and execution of the contract, and the fact of that representation is specified in the contract. Reasonable attorney’s fees shall be fixed by the court, and shall be an element of the costs of suit. Attorney’s fees provided for by this section shall not be subject to waiver by the parties to any contract which is entered into after the effective date of this section. Any provision in any such contract which provides for a waiver of attorney’s fees is void.
  • (b) (1) The court, upon notice and motion by a party, shall determine who is the party prevailing on the contract for purposes of this section, whether or not the suit proceeds to final judgment. Except as provided in paragraph (2), the party prevailing on the contract shall be the party who recovered a greater relief in the action on the contract. The court may also determine that there is no party prevailing on the contract for purposes of this section.
  • (2) Where an action has been voluntarily dismissed or dismissed pursuant to a settlement of the case, there shall be no prevailing party for purposes of this section. Where the defendant alleges in his or her answer that he or she tendered to the plaintiff the full amount to which he or she was entitled, and thereupon deposits in court for the plaintiff, the amount so tendered, and the allegation is found to be true, then the defendant is deemed to be a party prevailing on the contract within the meaning of this section. Where a deposit has been made pursuant to this section, the court shall, on the application of any party to the action, order the deposit to be invested in an insured, interest-bearing account. Interest on the amount shall be allocated to the parties in the same proportion as the original funds are allocated.
  • (c) In an action which seeks relief in addition to that based on a contract, if the party prevailing on the contract has damages awarded against it on causes of action not on the contract, the amounts awarded to the party prevailing on the contract under this section shall be deducted from any damages awarded in favor of the party who did not prevail on the contract. If the amount awarded under this section exceeds the amount of damages awarded the party not prevailing on the contract, the net amount shall be awarded the party prevailing on the contract and judgment may be entered in favor of the party prevailing on the contract for that net amount.

Text as published in the 2026 snapshot of the code.

Source: Vaquill Open US Law, compiled from official state publishers (huggingface.co), reproduced under license CC BY 4.0.

Read this provision at the official source →

What it actually says

Section 1717 fixes a specific unfairness. Contracts are often drafted so that one side — the landlord, the lender, the company — recovers its legal costs if it has to enforce the agreement, while the other side recovers nothing if it wins. Subdivision (a) makes that clause reciprocal: in any action on a contract where the contract specifically provides that attorney's fees incurred to enforce it shall be awarded either to one of the parties or to the prevailing party, the party determined to be prevailing on the contract, whether or not that is the party specified, is entitled to reasonable attorney's fees in addition to other costs.

The subdivision goes further in two ways. A fees provision is construed as applying to the entire contract, unless each party was represented by counsel in the negotiation and execution and that fact is specified in the contract. And the entitlement cannot be waived: fees provided for by the section are not subject to waiver by the parties, and any provision purporting to waive them is void.

Subdivision (b) supplies the machinery. The court, on notice and motion, determines who prevailed on the contract, whether or not the suit reaches final judgment; the prevailing party is the one who recovered greater relief on the contract, and the court may find that no party prevailed. Paragraph (2) contains the rule that surprises litigants: where an action is voluntarily dismissed, or dismissed under a settlement, there is no prevailing party for the purposes of the section. It also treats a defendant who pleaded and deposited a full tender as prevailing where that allegation is found true. The section applies to actions on a contract, so whether your claim is on the contract and whether the clause is engaged are questions to raise with a lawyer early — they change what losing costs.

When it applies

  • A lease or loan saying the other side recovers its fees but saying nothing about yours
  • You won a contract case and want to know whether your fees are recoverable
  • The other side dismissed the case and now wants its costs
  • A settlement is reached and both sides claim to have prevailed
  • A contract clause purporting to waive any claim for legal fees
  • You are deciding whether to defend a small contract claim at all

What this section does not say

  • It does not create a right to fees where the contract gives none. The section makes an existing fees provision mutual; it does not insert one into a contract that is silent.
  • It does not apply to claims that are not on the contract. Tort claims and statutory claims are outside it, though other statutes may provide fees for those.
  • Winning the case is not the same as prevailing on the contract. Subdivision (b) requires the court to determine who obtained greater relief on the contract, and it may find nobody did.
  • A voluntary dismissal or a settlement produces no prevailing party. Paragraph (b)(2) says so expressly, which defeats a costs claim after the case goes away.
  • It does not fix the amount. Reasonable fees are determined by the court, not by what the lawyer charged.

Worked examples

Invented situations, written to show how the wording bites. They are not real cases, not judgments and not precedent, and nothing here predicts what would happen in yours.

Illustrative example

A tenant defends a claim under a lease saying the landlord recovers its legal costs if it has to enforce the agreement, and saying nothing about the tenant's. The tenant wins.

How the wording applies

Section 1717 makes a one-sided fees clause mutual, so the tenant may recover as prevailing party on the contract even though the clause names only the landlord. It turns on the claim being on the contract: the same tenant's separate habitability or nuisance claim is outside the section, though other statutes may provide fees for it.

How the parties settled it

Each side bears its own legal costs, the landlord withdraws the claim with prejudice, and the fees clause is amended to a mutual one on renewal.

Illustrative example

A contract dispute settles halfway through, with a payment of about a third of what was claimed. Both sides then say they prevailed and want their fees.

How the wording applies

Paragraph (b)(2) says there is no prevailing party for the purposes of the section where an action is voluntarily dismissed or dismissed pursuant to a settlement. The decisive fact is how the case ended: a judgment requires the court to decide who obtained the greater relief on the contract, and it may find nobody did, but a settlement removes the question altogether.

How the parties settled it

The settlement figure is agreed inclusive of costs, each side bears its own fees, and the agreement records expressly that neither party is the prevailing party.

How courts have read it

Decisions construing this provision. The question and the summary are ours; the quoted sentence is the court's own words, taken from the published opinion. These are the decisions in our corpus, not every decision there is, and nothing here predicts any other case. Reported 1991 to 2017.

511 S. Park View, Inc. v. Tsantis, 240 Cal. App. 4th Supp. 44 (2015)

Court of Appeal

What the court had to decide

Whether a contractual cap on attorney fees in a lease agreement is void under Civil Code section 1717.

What it held

The court held that the contractual cap on attorney fees is not void under Civil Code section 1717; parties may agree to limit the amount of recoverable attorney fees.

In the court's words
The attorney fees clause does not contravene Civil Code section 1717.

Safari Associates v. Superior Court, 231 Cal. App. 4th 1400 (2014)

Court of Appeal

What the court had to decide

Whether an arbitrator exceeds his powers by applying the definition of prevailing party in Civil Code section 1717, subdivision (b)(1) instead of the definition provided in the parties' agreement.

What it held

The arbitrator acted within the scope of his powers in applying the definition of prevailing party in section 1717, subdivision (b)(1) because the issue was within the scope of the controversy submitted to arbitration and the agreement did not explicitly and unambiguously limit the arbitrator's power to do so.

In the court's words
Under these circumstances, the arbitrator acted within the scope of his powers in applying the definition of prevailing party found in section 1717, subdivision (b)(1) in awarding Safari attorney fees.

Kaufman v. Diskeeper Corp., 229 Cal. App. 4th 1 (2014)

Court of Appeal

What the court had to decide

Whether a party seeking contractual attorney fees subject to Civil Code section 1717 must file a memorandum of costs in addition to a noticed motion.

What it held

A party seeking attorney fees under Civil Code section 1717 need not file a memorandum of costs; it may seek the fees by a noticed motion under rule 3.1702, and the trial court erred in denying the fee request for lack of a memorandum of costs.

In the court's words
In sum, a party seeking fees incurred before judgment under Civil Code section 1717 need not file a memorandum of costs regarding the fees, in addition to filing a fee motion in compliance with rule 3.1702.

Hill v. Affirmed Housing Group, 226 Cal. App. 4th 1192 (2014)

Court of Appeal

What the court had to decide

Whether the trial court abused its discretion in awarding contractual attorney fees to Affirmed without apportioning between fees incurred on behalf of Affirmed and its codefendant, and without reducing the lodestar figure.

What it held

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding the full amount of attorney fees requested, because apportionment was not required as the defenses were inextricably intertwined, and the other grounds for reduction lacked merit.

In the court's words
We find no abuse of discretion and affirm.

Syers Properties III, Inc. v. Rankin, 226 Cal. App. 4th 691 (2014)

Court of Appeal

What the court had to decide

Whether the trial court abused its discretion in awarding attorney fees under Civil Code section 1717.

What it held

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining reasonable hours and reasonable rates for the lodestar calculation, and the award of $843,245.27 is affirmed.

In the court's words
The order granting defendants’ motion for attorney fees is affirmed.

Soni v. Wellmike Enterprise Co., 224 Cal. App. 4th 1477 (2014)

Court of Appeal

What the court had to decide

Whether a law firm represented by its own employees or associates in a contract action to recover its own fees can recover attorney fees under Civil Code section 1717.

What it held

No, because the law firm is effectively representing itself, and the Trope rule bars recovery of attorney fees for self-representation.

In the court's words
Because the law firm was represented by its own employees or associates, the trial court properly held attorney fees were not recoverable by Soni.

Source: Caselaw Access Project, CC0 1.0 Universal (public domain dedication).

Related sections

CIV § 1671 Liquidated damages valid unless unreasonable - CIV § 1671 CIV § 1670.5 Courts May Refuse Unconscionable Contracts - CIV § 1670.5 CIV § 3301 Lost profits must be clearly ascertainable - CIV § 3301

That's the law. Now let's settle your problem.

Say what is happening. A neutral mediator hears your side and the other party's, and walks you both to a written agreement. In the advanced settings you can ask for the decision to be reasoned on the California Codes.

This is with

Or open a session directly and invite the other party.

We copy this text from the official publisher and re-check it against that source on every page load, but we cannot guarantee it is complete, current or free of error, and we accept no liability for any reliance on it. An amendment can take effect before a consolidation catches up. The publisher's own copy is linked below; where the two differ, it is the official one that counts.

This page reproduces the text of CIV § 1717 in force at the date shown and explains it in general terms. It is not legal advice and takes no account of the circumstances of your case, which can change the answer completely. For a live dispute, for limitation periods, and before taking any step in court, consult a qualified lawyer in California.

← All California law pages