Hernandez v. Kocsis CA4/3

Filed 2/4/26 Hernandez v. Kocsis CA4/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

MARCO HERNANDEZ et al.,

Plaintiffs, Cross-defendants and G064238 Appellants, (Super. Ct. No. 30-2020- v. 01156762)

SUSAN DOROTHY KOCSIS, OPINION

Defendant, Cross-complainant and Respondent.

Appeal from a postjudgment order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Sheila Recio, Judge. Reversed and remanded with instructions. Avant Law Corporation and Michael Kim; Gregory M. Garrison; Papaefthimiou and Alexander E. Papaefthimiou for Plaintiffs, Cross- defendants and Appellants. Cazzell Law and Maryann Cazzell for Defendant, Cross- complainant and Respondent. * * *

Plaintiffs Marco Hernandez and Rosie Hernandez Moreno (Plaintiffs) successfully sued their landlord, Susan Dorothy Kocsis, for negligence and premises liability after a fire burned down their apartment. They also prevailed on a cross-complaint filed against them by Kocsis, which included a cause of action for breach of a written lease. Kocsis appealed from that judgment, and in a separate opinion filed concurrently with this opinion (Hernandez et al. v. Kocsis (Feb. 3, 2026, G063508) [nonpub. opn.]), we affirm the judgment. After prevailing at trial, Plaintiffs moved for an award of attorney fees pursuant to Civil Code section 1717 (section 1717). The trial court denied the motion, reasoning that the “crux” of the action was a tort claim, not one “on a contract,” and that Plaintiffs had failed to prove a written contract with an attorney fee provision existed. Plaintiffs appealed from the order denying their motion for attorney fees. The trial court erred. Kocsis’s cross-complaint expressly included a cause of action for breach of contract, and she sought to recover attorney fees on that claim. Had Kocsis prevailed on her contract claim, she would have been entitled to fees under the provision she sought to prove at trial. Plaintiffs, having prevailed by demonstrating that the written contract was inapplicable and their tenancy was governed by an oral lease, are entitled to their fees under the reciprocity principles of section 1717. Accordingly, we reverse the postjudgment order and remand for the trial court to determine the reasonable amount of fees.