AB 78 creates a statutory entitlement to recover reasonable attorney’s fees in actions on contracts that are 'book accounts' when the written contract does not already allocate fees. The statute defines the prevailing party as the side that obtains the greater relief and authorizes the court to fix fees as part of costs, while retaining discretion to find that no party prevailed.
Why this matters: the change shifts litigation incentives in routine retail and service debt suits. Creditors gain a predictable pathway to recover at least some legal costs; defendants who successfully beat book-account claims can also recover fees.
The rule will affect how creditors draft contracts, how collection lawyers price cases, and how defendants and courts negotiate and decide small-dollar disputes.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill requires courts to award reasonable attorney’s fees to the party prevailing in an action on a contract characterized as a book account when the contract is silent about fees. The court fixes the fee award as part of costs and can determine there is no prevailing party.
Who It Affects
Retail and service creditors who sue on charge or ledger accounts, consumers defending book-account claims, collection attorneys who prosecute or defend those suits, and trial courts asked to quantify modest fee awards.
Why It Matters
By making fee recovery routine in book-account litigation, the law alters settlement leverage and collection economics: some suits that were marginally profitable may now justify legal action, while defendants face a capped but tangible exposure to fee awards.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB 78 targets lawsuits that arise from ‘book accounts’—the sort of ongoing charge or billing relationships tracked on ledgers—where the underlying contract does not already award attorney’s fees. When a party brings such a contract action, the court must identify the party that obtained the greater relief on the contract claim and award that prevailing party reasonable attorney’s fees as part of costs, unless the parties have contractually waived the statutory right.
The statute directs the court to fix the fee amount, and it creates a reciprocal right: a defendant who proves there is no obligation owing on the book account (i.e., a prevailing defendant) is also entitled to recover attorney’s fees as costs. It also preserves judicial discretion: the court may conclude that neither side is the prevailing party for purposes of awarding fees.The bill ties the fee award to practical limits and procedural checks.
The fee is not open-ended; the court must select an amount consistent with any applicable default fee schedule and is required to treat awards above such a schedule as reasonable attorney’s fees that must be proved as actual and necessary. The statute further conditions the availability of the fees on the parties’ agreement language: if the charged person signed a written agreement, the statutory fee-shifting will not apply unless that agreement expressly states that the prevailing party is entitled to the statutory fees.Finally, AB 78 draws a clear set of exclusions.
The fee-shifting rule does not apply where an insurance company is a party, and insurers, sureties, or guarantors aren’t liable under the statute absent a contractual promise. The statute also excludes banks, savings associations, federal and state credit unions and their affiliates, industrial loan companies, and licensed consumer or commercial finance lenders from its coverage.
The provision applies to book accounts entered into on or after January 1, 1987, and places the practical burden on courts to reconcile statutory caps, court fee schedules, and the demonstration of actual fees when awards exceed local defaults.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The statute caps recoverable fees: the court cannot award more than $1,200 for book accounts based on obligations of a natural person for primarily personal, family, or household purposes, and cannot award more than $1,600 for other book accounts.
Instead of the flat caps alone, the award also cannot exceed 25 percent of the principal obligation; the court must use the lesser of the numeric cap or 25% of the principal.
A defendant who proves they owe nothing on the book account is entitled to recover attorney’s fees as costs, subject to the same numeric caps ($1,200/$1,600).
A written agreement signed by the person to be charged can prevent statutory fee-shifting unless that agreement explicitly states the prevailing party is entitled to the statutory fees.
The fee-shifting rule excludes insurers, sureties, guarantors (absent contractual promise), banks and similar depository institutions, subsidiaries/affiliates of those entities, authorized industrial loan companies, and licensed consumer or commercial finance lenders.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Entitlement to fees in book-account contract actions
This provision creates the base rule: when a suit arises on a contract that qualifies as a book account and the contract does not already provide for attorney’s fees, the party determined to be prevailing on the contract is entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees in addition to other costs. Practically, this converts fee recovery from a matter of contract into a default statutory remedy for book-account litigation unless the parties waive it.
Statutory caps and percentage ceiling
This subsection prescribes the monetary limits on awards: fixed caps of $1,200 for primarily personal-book accounts and $1,600 for other book accounts, and an alternative ceiling equal to 25% of the principal owed. The court must choose the lesser of the applicable fixed cap or the 25% figure, which creates a dual limit that scales with the size of the underlying debt.
Fee recovery for prevailing defendants
If the defendant is found to owe nothing on the asserted book account, this provision makes that defendant the prevailing party and entitles them to recover fees as an element of costs, subject to the same $1,200/$1,600 caps. The practical effect is a reciprocal fee-shifting rule that can deter weak claims and compensate successful defenses.
Written agreements can waive statutory fees unless explicit
This clause protects contractual autonomy: if there is a written agreement signed by the person to be charged, the statute’s fees do not apply unless the agreement contains an explicit statement that the prevailing party is entitled to the statutory fees. Creditors that want to preserve or expand fee-shifting will therefore need clear language in contracts; absent that, the statute supplies the default.
Interaction with court fee schedules and proof of reasonableness
The statute requires that the attorney’s fees awarded be the lesser of the statutory maximum, any applicable default attorney’s fee schedule adopted by the court, or an amount otherwise provided by the court. If a claimant seeks more than a court’s default schedule allows, the claimant bears the burden to prove the excess amounts are actual and necessary—introducing evidentiary proof requirements into modest consumer and commercial suits.
Insurance-related exclusions
This subsection removes insurance companies from coverage: the section does not apply when an insurance company is a party, and insurers, sureties, or guarantors cannot be held liable under the statute for fees awarded against their insured absent a specific contractual term. That limits the statute’s reach in claims involving indemnity or coverage relationships.
Financial-institution and lender exclusions
This paragraph exempts a long list of regulated lending and depository institutions—banks, savings associations, federal and state credit unions and their affiliates, authorized industrial loan companies, and licensed consumer or commercial finance lenders. The exclusion narrows the statute’s application to nonbank creditors and leaves many regulated lenders outside the fee-shifting regime.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Finance across all five countries.
Explore Finance in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Small merchants and service providers: They gain a statutory route to recover some legal costs when suing on in‑house charge or ledger accounts, which can make small-dollar collection suits economically viable.
- Plaintiff collection attorneys and law firms handling book-account matters: Predictable fee rules and caps simplify fee petitions and fee‑shifting calculations for routine claims.
- Defendants who successfully defend against book-account claims: Winning defendants can recover fees as costs, reducing the net burden of defending meritless suits.
- Creditors negotiating settlements: The existence of capped fee awards creates a clearer ceiling for settlement negotiations, enabling quicker resolutions in low‑value disputes.
Who Bears the Cost
- Consumers and individual debtors who lose: Although caps limit exposure, losing individual defendants can still be liable for attorney’s fees up to the statutory ceilings, increasing the financial stakes of defending suits.
- Small creditors seeking awards above local default schedules: They bear the evidentiary burden and potential expense of proving that fees in excess of a court’s default schedule were actual and necessary.
- State trial courts: Judges must determine prevailing parties, calculate the lesser of multiple limits, and adjudicate fee reasonableness disputes—adding administrative and fact-finding burdens to routine dockets.
- Creditors who rely on form contracts without explicit fee language: If their signed agreements lack the required explicit statement, they may lose the ability to invoke contractual fee-shifting and must rely on the statute’s caps instead.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is compensating successful parties for legal work in routine book-account suits without creating disproportionate financial pressure on individual defendants or incentivizing structural workarounds by creditors; the statute limits awards to low caps and a percentage of principal, but those limits both risk undercompensating legitimate legal work and motivating creditors to redesign contracts or business arrangements to avoid the statute’s reach.
AB 78 attempts to strike a balance between compensating prevailing parties and limiting overreaching fee awards, but that balancing act produces implementation questions. The dual-cap structure (fixed dollar caps plus a 25 percent-of-principal ceiling) can undercompensate counsel in factually complex cases while overcompensating in mid-size accounts; it also invites disputes over which ceiling is truly 'lesser' when principal calculations are contested.
Requiring proof for fees above a court’s default schedule introduces evidentiary proceedings into low-value suits where the transaction costs of proof can exceed additional recovery.
The statutory exclusions create practical carve-outs that may change how creditors organize and whom they use to collect debts. Regulated lenders and many depositary institutions are outside the statute, which may motivate creditors to restructure receivables or use third parties to avoid or exploit the rule.
The clause that negates statutory fees unless a signed agreement explicitly preserves them pushes creditors toward more explicit contract drafting, raising consumer‑protection questions about disclosure and bargaining power. Finally, technical uncertainties remain: the statute anchors the substantive trigger to the concept of a 'book account' (a cross-reference to CCP 337a), but modern electronic billing, third‑party servicing arrangements, and debt purchases may produce litigation over whether a particular claim qualifies under that definition.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.