Anderson v. Waldorf
Filed 3/2/06 Anderson v. Waldorf CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(Butte)
----
| GARD M. ANDERSON, Plaintiff, Cross-defendant and Appellant, v. JERRY WALDORF et al., Defendants, Cross-complainants and Respondents. | C048619
(Super. Ct. No. 126944)
|
Plaintiff Gard M. Anderson obtained judgment against defendants Jerry and Mary Waldorf on both his complaint and their cross-complaint stemming from a construction contract dispute. Plaintiff's subsequent motion for attorney fees pursuant to Civil Code section 3260.1 was denied. (Further undesignated section references are to the Civil Code.) Plaintiff appeals the order denying attorney fees, contending the trial court misinterpreted and misapplied section 3260.1. We disagree and affirm the order.
Facts and Procedural History
On or about February 8, 2000, plaintiff entered into a contract with defendants to construct a single family home at 22 Walnut Park Drive, Chico, California. Defendants agreed to pay plaintiff $165,250 in 10 equal draws of $16,525, in accordance with a schedule attached to the contract.
Plaintiff commenced work on the project and received payment of the first five draws. However, on August 9, 2000, defendants sent plaintiff a memorandum indicating they were paying the sixth draw â€
