HOWARD HEYMAN AND SUE HEYMAN, HIS WIFE, APPELLANTS,
v.
PHILIP L. VONELLI D/B/A VONELLI CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, APPELLEE

Fla. 3d DCA | 1982-05-11
No. 81-1336
Before SCHWARTZ, DANIEL S. PEARSON and FERGUSON, JJ.
413 So. 2d 1254 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (1982) Negative Treatment
Cited by 10 cases

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.

Synopsis

In this appeal, the Florida District Court of Appeal reversed a trial court's award of attorney's fees and additional costs in connection with confirming an arbitration award. The court held that while the arbitration award itself was properly confirmed, the trial court lacked authority to award attorney's fees incurred in prior circuit court litigation because the Arbitration Code does not permit recovery of counsel fees, and a party cannot recover such fees under multiple statutes for the same dispute.


Holding

The trial court lacked authority to award attorney's fees and costs incurred in the circuit court litigation. While the arbitration award itself was properly confirmed, the Arbitration Code does not permit recovery of counsel fees, and a party cannot receive such fees under both the mechanic's lien statute and the arbitration statute for the same dispute.


Headnotes

[1] Attorney's fees cannot be taxed as costs unless authorized by contract or legislative authority.

[2] A trial court may not award attorney's fees and costs incurred in circuit court litigation when the dispute was subject to arbitration and the circuit court action was di…

Previewing 2 of 5 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

Key Quotes

“the general rule in Florida is that attorney's fees cannot be taxed as costs in any cause unless authorized by contract or legislative authority”

Establishes the foundational legal principle governing attorney's fees awards in Florida

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

Heyman demanded arbitration for breach of a construction contract that contained an arbitration clause. Vonelli filed a mechanic's lien foreclosure ac…

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.


Opinion of the Court
FERGUSON, Judge.

FERGUSON, Judge.

This appeal challenges an Order on a Motion to Confirm Arbitration Award and Assess Attorney’s Fees by which the trial court increased the amount of costs awarded in arbitration and assessed an attorney’s fee. We reverse.

Appellant, Heyman, commenced these proceedings on a demand for arbitration alleging breach of a construction contract. Although the contract, prepared by Vonelli, provided that all disputes arising out of the contract or breach thereof would be decided by arbitration, Vonelli subsequently filed an action in the circuit court seeking to foreclose a mechanic’s lien based on the same dispute which was the subject of Hey man’s demand for arbitration. Heyman’s motion to dismiss the trial court mechanic’s lien action was initially denied but was granted by a third successor judge after several months of prosecution in the circuit court. No review of the order dismissing the circuit court action was sought by Vonelli, who then filed his reply to the demand for arbitration along with a counterclaim for lien foreclosure. The dispute was resolved by arbitration in Vonelli’s favor and an order was entered assessing arbitration costs against Heyman in the amount of $1,372.16.

On Vonelli’s motion to confirm the arbitration award the trial court entered its order confirming the award and further awarded attorney’s fees of $7,500.00 and additional costs of $1,618.39 for fees and costs incurred in the circuit court litigation prior to its dismissal, including costs incurred in affirming the arbitration award.

Understandably, Vonelli would like to be recompensed for his expenses, costs, and attorney’s fees incurred during the lengthy mechanic’s lien proceedings in circuit court.

However, the general rule in Florida is that attorney’s fees cannot be taxed as costs in any cause unless authorized by contract or legislative authority. Condomo v. Emmanuel, 91 So. 2d 653 (Fla.1956); Beach Resorts International, Inc. v. Clarmac Marine Construction Co., 339 So. 2d 689 (Fla.2d DCA 1976). The award the court was called upon to confirm by Vonelli was entered pursuant to the Arbitration Code, Chapter 682, Florida Statutes (1979). Upon application of appellee to confirm the arbitration award the trial court was without authority to vacate, modify, or correct the award except pursuant to Sections 682.-13 and 682.14, Florida Statutes (1979) requiring a showing that it was procured by undue means or mistake. No such irregularity was alleged or proved.

Moreover, Section 682.11, Florida Statutes (1979) governing fees and expenses of arbitration, specifically excludes counsel fees as recoverable costs.

Since Vonelli could not recover his attorney’s fees and costs under the Arbitration Statute, he sought them under the Mechanic’s Lien Statute while simultaneously asking the court to affirm the arbitration finding in his favor. His single argument in support of the award for additional fees and costs is that if the matter were properly one for arbitration, the initial trial judge should have made such a determination and not have allowed appellee to continue further with his mechanic’s lien action.

We reject the argument because just as the dispute could not have been litigated in two forums, an award for costs and fees could not have been based on proceedings in two forums. Vonelli makes no contention here that the circuit court erred in dismissing his complaint for mechanic’s lien foreclosure which must be interpreted as an acquiescence to removal of the dispute into arbitration.

Furthermore, Vonelli moved for the order confirming the arbitration award. A party who enters into a contract requiring arbitration may not file a complaint of foreclosure and demand an attorney’s fee. Oakdale Park, Ltd. v. Byrd, 346 So. 2d 648 (Fla.2d DCA 1977). The order confirming the arbitration panel’s award is affirmed, except as to that part of the award which grants attorney’s fees and costs incurred in the Circuit Court litigation which is reversed, and the cause is remanded with instructions to assess and award only those court costs incurred pursuant to confirming the arbitration award.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Fewox v. McMERIT Constr. Co., 556 So. 2d 419 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)
    …have also misconstrued Beach Resorts International to hold that section 682.11 prohibits an award of attorney’s fees for services rendered during arbitration. See Cuevas v. Potamkin Dodge, Inc., 455 So. 2d 398 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); Heyman v. Vonelli, 413 So. 2d 1254 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); McDaniel v. Berhalter, 405 So. 2d 1027 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); Oakdale Park Ltd. v. Byrd, 346 So. 2d 648 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). But see Zac Smith & Co. (in which the First District Court of Appeal reaches a contrary conclusion to that…
  • ZAC Smith & Co., Inc. v. Moonspinner Condo. Ass'n, Inc., 534 So. 2d 739 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)
    …Resorts International, Inc. v. Clarmac Marine Construction Company, 339 So. 2d 689 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976); Oakdale Park, Ltd. v. Byrd, 346 So. 2d 648 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977); McDaniel v. Berhalter, 405 So. 2d 1027 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); and Heyman v. Vonelli, 413 So. 2d 1254 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). They also cite Cuevas v. Potamkin Dodge, Inc., 455 So. 2d 398 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984) (involving an action under the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, section 501.201), and Buena Vista Construction Company v. Carpenter…
  • Cuevas v. Potamkin Dodge, Inc., 455 So. 2d 398 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)
    …lf provide for fees, which are excluded by the governing Florida arbitration code, Sec. 682.11, Fla.Stat. (1981),6 may not become entitled to their recovery simply by filing a presumably unnecessary complaint in the circuit court. Heyman v. Vonelli, 413 So. 2d 1254 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); McDaniel v. Berhalter, 405 So. 2d 1027 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); Oakdale Park Ltd. v. Byrd, 346 So. 2d 648 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). As to the issue involved on this appeal — the entitlement to statutory fees when recovery is effected in a…

Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw