In Banks v. Manos (1991) 232 Cal. App. 3d 123, the Court of Appeal held that the entire judgment--consisting of costs, attorney fees imposed as sanctions, and attorney fees awarded to the prevailing parties pursuant to a contract--was required to be bonded in order to stay execution pending appeal. At the time Banks v. Manos was decided, section 917.1 was worded differently than it is now. Former subdivision (a) provided: "The perfecting of an appeal shall not stay enforcement of the judgment or order in the trial court if the judgment or order is for money or directs the payment of money, whether consisting of a special fund or not, and whether payable by the appellant or another party to the action, unless an undertaking is given." In 1986, section 917.1 had been amended to add former subdivision (d), which stated as follows: "Costs awarded by the trial court under Chapter 6 (commencing with Section 1021) of Title 14 shall be included in the amount of the judgment or order for the purpose of applying subdivisions (a) and (b)." Given the statutory language applicable at the time, the court in Banks v. Manos, supra, 232 Cal. App. 3d 123, concluded that "under the 1986 amendment to Code of Civil Procedure section 917.1, costs awarded in the trial court must be included when calculating the amount of the bond required to stay execution pending appeal. (Code Civ. Proc., 917.1, subd. (d).) That amendment was not intended to alter the traditional rule that an award of costs alone is stayed by an appeal without bond. However that amendment indicates a legislative intent to require bonding of an entire judgment when some part of it must be bonded." ( Banks v. Manos, supra, at p. 127.)