BRICKELL BAY CLUB CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., APPELLANT/CROSS APPELLEE,
v.
MICHAEL FORTE ET AL., APPELLEES/CROSS APPELLANTS
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Brickell Bay Club Condominium Association appealed a judgment against it seeking rescission of two agreements with the appellees. The court affirmed the judgment against the association but reversed the trial court's denial of attorney's fees and costs to the prevailing appellees, holding that a contractual provision entitling the prevailing party to recover such fees must be enforced.
The court held that when a contract contains an unequivocal provision awarding attorney's fees and costs to the prevailing party, courts have no discretion to decline enforcement of that undertaking. The trial court's refusal to award fees was erroneous, and the matter must be remanded to determine the amounts of attorney's fees and costs owed.
[1] A contractual provision entitling the prevailing party to recover attorney's fees and costs in litigation arising from the contract is enforceable.
[2] Courts have no discretion to decline to enforce a contractual provision for attorney's fees and costs.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The courts have no discretion to decline to enforce such an undertaking, any more than any other contractual provision.”
Establishes the core holding that contractual provisions for attorney's fees must be enforced without judicial discretion to decline enforcement.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBrickell Bay Club Condominium Association brought an action seeking rescission of two agreements between itself and Forte and others. The trial court,…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Equitable Action cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHWARTZ, Judge.
There is no merit whatever in the appellant, Brickell Bay Club Condominium Association, Inc.’s claims of error in the entry of judgment against, it, after non-jury trial, in an action seeking rescission of two agreements between the association and the appellees. Consequently, we affirm as to the appeal.
By cross-appeal,1 the appellees challenge the trial court’s failure to award them reasonable attorney’s fee and costs, notwithstanding a specific term of one of the pertinent contracts which stated
In connection with any litigation arising out of this Contract, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover all costs incurred, including reasonable attorneys’ fees.
The trial court apparently made its determination because the action had been brought in good faith and on fairly debatable grounds. This ruling was erroneous. The agreement which has been quoted gave those of the appellees who were parties to it, since they prevailed in the litigation below, a clear and unequivocal right to the recovery of both attorney’s fees and costs.2 The courts have no discretion to decline to enforce such an undertaking, any more than any other contractual provision. Ritter’s Hotel, Inc. v. Sidebothom, 142 Fla. 171, 194 So. 322 (1940); Kendall East Estates, Inc. v. Banks, 386 So. 2d 1245, 1247 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Silver Blue Lake Apts., No. 3, Inc. v. Manson, 334 So. 2d 48 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976). Accordingly, the cause is remanded for the sole purpose of determining the amounts of attorney’s fees and costs to be awarded under the provision in question.3
Affirmed in part, reversed in part.
. See, Brickell Bay Club Condominium Association, Inc. v. Forte, 379 So. 2d 1334 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980).
. Absent the agreement, the court would have discretion to deny costs to either side in an equitable action like this. Wilhelm v. Adams, 102 Fla. 669, 136 So. 397 (1931); International Center of the Americas, Inc. v. Dade Fashions, Inc., 391 So. 2d 383 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980).
.Consistent with this holding, we have granted the motion for attorney’s fees on appeal and assessed the sum of $15,000.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (22 total)
-
Hadi B. Lashkajani v. Lashkajani, 911 So. 2d 1154 (Fla. 2005)…ute authorizes it or the contract so provides). Trial courts do not have the discretion to decline to enforce such provisions, even if the challenging party brings a meritorious claim in good faith. See Brickell Bay Club Condo. Ass’n, Inc. v. Forte, 397 So. 2d 959, 960 (Fla. 3rd DCA), review denied, 408 So. 2d 1092 (Fla.1981). Such provisions exist to “protect and indemnify” the interests of the parties, not to enrich the prevailing party. See Blount Bros. Realty Co. v. Eilenberger, 98 Fla. 775, 124 So. 41, 4…
-
Blue Lakes Apts., Ltd. v. George Gowing, Inc., 464 So. 2d 705 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)…here a contract provides for an award of attorney’s fees to the prevailing party in any litigation arising out of the contract a court is without discretion to decline to enforce the provision. See Brickell Bay Club Condominium Association v. Forte, 397 So. 2d 959 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. denied, 408 So. 2d 1092 (Fla.1981). Moreover, given such a contractual provision, it is improper to deny attorney’s fees under a “balancing of the equities” theory. See McCormick v. Molenkamp, 449 So. 2d 384 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984).…
-
Hinkley v. Gould, 971 So. 2d 955 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)…ould-Cooksey for the court’s authority to award fees. Hinkley is correct that the trial court erred in awarding attorney’s fees and costs from the interpleaded fund. As the court explained in Brickell Bay Club Condominium Association, Inc. v. Forte, 397 So. 2d 959, 960 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), an agreement gives those who are parties to it a clear and unequivocal right to the recovery of both attorney’s fees and costs. (Emphasis added.) Gould-Cooksey timely filed a motion for attorney’s fees based upon paragraph…
Previewing 3 of 22 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Ritter's Hotel, Inc. v. Sidebothom, 142 Fla. 171 (Fla. 1940)
- Chas. M. Wilhelm v. Adams, 102 Fla. 669 (Fla. 1931)
- Weiss v. Turtletaub, 386 So. 2d 1245 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- Kendall E. Ests., Inc. v. David P. Banks & Joan S. Banks, 386 So. 2d 1245 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- Brickell BAY Club Condo. Ass'n, Inc. v. Forte, 379 So. 2d 1334 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- Silver Blue Lake Apts. v. Manson, 334 So. 2d 48 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)
- S.C. Ins. Co. v. Piloto, 391 So. 2d 383 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)