In First Nationwide Bank v. Mountain Cascade, Inc. (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 871, a developer entered into a construction contract that contained a fee provision permitting the recovery of "necessary expenses, including attorney's fees," in the event of specified litigation. (Id. at pp. 873-874.) Litigation between the developer and contractor ensued, and judgment on the merits was entered in favor of the developer. (Ibid.) The developer then filed a motion for attorney fees, expert witness fees, and costs, which the trial court granted. (Id. at p. 875.) The court in First Nationwide Bank reversed the award of expert witness fees, reasoning that unlike a contract-based award of attorney fees, a contract-based award of expert fees, in itself, is not a court cost, as defined by statute, and thus it cannot be obtained by the summary procedures for obtaining such costs. (First Nationwide Bank v. Mountain Cascade, Inc., supra, 77 Cal.App.4th at pp. 875-879.) Rather, parties seeking such an award "must specially plead and prove their right to recover expert witness fees under an appropriate provision of their contract." (Id. at p. 879.) The court in First Nationwide Bank explained: "Under section 1033.5, subdivision (b)(1), of the Code of Civil Procedure parties may not recover expert witness fees as costs 'except when expressly authorized by law.' Such express authorization exists in instances when the expert is court appointed (Code Civ. Proc., 1033.5, subd. (a)(8)) or when the judgment awarded is lower than a rejected settlement offer (Code Civ. Proc., 998, subds. (c) & (d))." (First Nationwide Bank v. Mountain Cascade, Inc., supra, 77 Cal.App.4th at pp. 875-876.) The First Nationwide Bank stated: "The reasons for this pleading and proof requirement are readily apparent. . . . Where the contractual provision is ambiguous, extrinsic evidence may be warranted. Adverse parties must be put on notice through the pleadings that this contractual theory will be asserted, and the issue must be submitted to the trier of fact for resolution pursuant to a prejudgment evidentiary proceeding, not a summary postjudgment motion." (First Nationwide Bank v. Mountain Cascade, Inc., supra, 77 Cal.App.4th at p. 879.)