In Cole v. BT & G, Inc. (1983) 141 Cal.App.3d 995, the Court of Appeal concluded that the defendants who had successfully moved to vacate a confession of judgment were entitled to contractual attorney fees as prevailing parties. (Id. at pp. 996-997.) The court rejected the plaintiffs' contention that the defendants were not entitled to attorney fees until a trial had determined the merits of the dispute between the parties, stating: "The fallacy in plaintiffs' position is that here there are two actions: one on the confession of judgment and another on the agreement and note. A final, appealable judgment was entered on the validity of the confession of judgment, and a new and independent lawsuit was required in order to pursue defendants' liability for the obligation under the agreement. This is not the situation ... where an appeal was attempted from an interlocutory order or decree rendered during litigation." (Id. at p. 998.)