In Wagner v. Benson (1980) 101 Cal.App.3d 27, the plaintiffs sued a bank for fraud and negligence in connection with a loan transaction, and the bank filed a cross-complaint to collect the balance due under the promissory notes signed in the transaction. The bank prevailed on the complaint and cross-complaint, but the trial court limited the bank's award of attorney fees to the fees incurred in suing on the promissory notes. The Court of Appeal reversed. It reasoned: 'Here the parties have agreed to compensate the prevailing party for reasonable costs incurred in collecting the balance due on the notes. However, the Bank's collection efforts were interrelated with its defense against the plaintiffs' fraud allegations. Defense of the charge of fraud was necessary in the Bank's efforts to collect the notes .' (Id. at p. 37.) In short, a bank that preailed in an action to collect on promissory notes was entitled, under a provision in the promissory notes awarding attorney fees "incurred in collecting the balance due on the notes," to recover its fees in the collection action and the fees it incurred in defending a cross-complaint alleging that the promissory notes were not enforceable because they were procured through fraud. (Id. at p. 37.) Wagner based its holding on the fact that "defense of the charge of fraud was necessary in the bank's efforts to collect the notes." (Ibid.)