Is there any evidence that defense counsel has contributed to the common benefit by litigating purely controversial issues in the effort to sustain adverse claims?

There is, however, some evidence of contribution to the common benefit by defense counsel. For example, he discovered the existence of a deed which clouded the joint title, thus enabling a claim adverse to both parties to be disposed of. There may well be many other services for the common benefit. On the record before us, however, it does not appear that there is evidence sustaining the finding that all services of defense counsel were for the common benefit, rather than for 'litigating purely controversial issues * * * in the effort to sustain * * * adverse claims.' Capuccio v. Caire, supra, 207 Cal. at page 208, 277 P. at page 478. Accordingly, the case must be remanded for retrial of the issue of value of such services rendered for the common benefit.