Williams v. Palmer

Filed 5/16/06 Williams v. Palmer CA1/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

Defendants Michael E. Palmer, Jessica Y. Liu, and the Palmer Family Trust through its trustees (collectively, the Palmers) appeal from the judgment entered in favor of plaintiff Dan R. Williams, doing business as Williams & Boys Builders, on his complaint to recover for construction services rendered in connection with the renovation of the Palmers' home. The Palmers do not challenge the judgment on the merits, but contend that the trial court erred in awarding Williams attorney fees under the construction contract. They argue that Williams was not entitled to recover his attorney fees because the additional work for which he recovered was outside the scope of the contract. We conclude that the attorney fee provision in the contract, which provides for a fee award to the prevailing party in a dispute related to the agreement, was broad enough to encompass all of Williams's claims asserted in this action. Accordingly, we affirm.

Factual and Procedural History[1]

In August 2000, the Palmers entered into a contract with Williams for the renovation of their home. The scope of the contract is defined by certain architectural plans and drawings. The contract is based on time and materials with an estimate of $497,357 for completion of the work specified. The contract identifies additional items that are not contained within the cost estimate and provides that â€