Can plaintiffs continue to pursue a mechanics' lien claim even when a written contract cannot be proven?

We agree that plaintiffs did receive the remedy they sought as to the mechanics' lien. However, we do not agree that payment for the work they performed was the sole issue at trial. Assuming they did their legal research, plaintiffs must have known that they would not be entitled to attorneys fees in pursuing their mechanics' lien remedies. Plaintiffs continued to pursue a [58 Cal.App.4th 1422] breach of contract theory even when a written contract could not be proven at trial. It is clear that the recovery of attorneys fees against the Hornwoods was a substantial aim of the lawsuit. Having elected to proceed with their breach of contract theory, they assumed the burdens of invoking that contract's attorneys fee clause. Upon losing that claim, they are now liable pursuant to the reciprocity established by Civil Code section 1717. (Hsu v. Abbara, supra, 9 Cal.4th at pp. 876-877, 39 Cal.Rptr.2d 824, 891 P.2d 804.)

4. Did the trial court properly exercise its discretion?

In this matter, the court's minute orders demonstrate the trial court knew exactly what it was doing when it awarded attorneys fees to the Hornwoods despite the fact that plaintiffs prevailed on their mechanics' lien claim. It recognized that plaintiffs had persisted on a breach of contract claim for which there was no support and that they were overreaching by requesting punitive damages and attorneys fees when such amounts are never awarded in mechanics' lien cases. It went through the bills and apparently deducted those amounts which were identified as fees for mechanics' lien issues, as well as those fees for which there was little factual support. It did not, however, base its decision on equitable considerations unrelated to litigation success. (Hsu v. Abbara, supra, 9 Cal.4th at p. 877, 39 Cal.Rptr.2d 824, 891 P.2d 804.)