Is a plaintiff entitled to attorney fees under section 1717 of the California Civil Code even if the contract is invalid?

represented in the negotiation. (Ibid.) "[S]ection 1717 has been broadened to include all contract actions which include provisions for attorney's fees." (Sears v. Baccaglio (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 1136, 1148.) As applied to the case before us now, representation was not specified in the contract, and therefore the attorney fee provision must be construed as applying "to the entire contact[.]" ( 1717, subd. (a).)

The trial court ruled, "First, the wording in the lease is not broad enough to encompass the fees requested, particularly since the [c]ourt found that there was no valid lease." Under section 1717, the validity or existence of the contract alleged in the complaint is not a prerequisite to an attorney fee award. (Hsu v. Abbara (1995) 9 Cal.4th 863, 870.) "It is now settled that a party is entitled to attorney fees under section 1717 'even when the party prevails on grounds the contract is inapplicable, invalid, unenforceable or nonexistent, if the other party would have been entitled to attorney's fees had it prevailed.' [Citations.]" (Ibid.)