HENRY BURNSTEIN, APPELLANT,
v.
5838 CONDOMINIUM, INC., APPELLEE
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.
A condominium association that obtained a preliminary injunction for noise abatement was not a prevailing party entitled to attorney's fees because the preliminary injunction was interlocutory and the case remained pending on the merits.
A preliminary injunction does not make the obtaining party a prevailing party for attorney's fees purposes until there is a final judgment or dispositive order ending the litigation.
[1] A preliminary injunction is an interlocutory order that does not establish a prevailing party for purposes of awarding attorney's fees until final judgment or other dispo…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“There can be no prevailing party for the purpose of awarding attorney's fees until there is an end to the litigation as by judgment or other dispositive order.”
Court explaining the requirement for prevailing party status in attorney's fees awards.
A condominium association obtained a preliminary injunction against a tenant for noise abatement while the main claims—eviction and counterclaim for b…
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 Condominium Act cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Where a condominium association obtained a preliminary injunction against a tenant for noise abatement during the pendency of the main claims — a complaint for eviction and counterclaim for breach of lease agreement — the condominium association was not a prevailing party for the purpose of attorney’s fees because the preliminary injunction was entered as an interlocutory order, and the case remained to be determined on the merits. There can be no prevailing party for the purpose of awarding attorney’s fees until there is an end to the litigation as by judgment or other dis-positive order. See Steinhardt v. Eastern Shores White House Association, Inc., 413 So. 2d 785 (Fla. 3d. DCA 1982); Midway Shopping Mall, Inc. v. Airtech Air Conditioning, Inc., 253 So. 2d 900 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971).
A preliminary injunction does not purport to decide the merits of a cause of action but merely serves to maintain the status quo pending a final determination on those merits; the provisions of such injunction may be merged in, or dissolved by, the final decree. Ladner v. Plaza Del Prado Condominium Association, Inc., 423 So. 2d 927 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Adoption Hot Line, Inc. v. State, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 385 So. 2d 682 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); North Dade Water Co. v. Adken Land Co., 114 So. 2d 347 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959), cert. denied, 117 So. 2d 496 (Fla.1959).
The remaining points in this appeal are without merit.
Affirmed in part; reversed in part.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
S. Fla. Limousines, Inc. v. Broward Cnty. Aviation Dep't, 512 So. 2d 1059 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)…s quo until a final hearing. Cox v. Florida Mobile Leasing, Inc., 478 So. 2d 1200 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985); Hotelerama Associates, Ltd. v. Bystrom, 449 So. 2d 836 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. denied, 458 So. 2d 271 (Fla.1984); Burnstein v. 5838 Condominium, Inc., 430 So. 2d 572 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); City of Miami Springs v. Steffen, 423 So. 2d 930 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Ladner v. Plaza Del Prado Condominium Association, Inc., 423 So. 2d 927 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982), rev. denied, 434 So. 2d 887 (Fla.1983); Tamiami Trail Tours, Inc. v.…
-
Nine Island Ave. Condo. Ass'n, Inc. v. Siegel, 23 So. 3d 1248 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009)…denial of the Association’s petition for injunctive relief was a final appealable determination of the matter and that the trial court properly awarded fees to him as the prevailing party- As this Court explained in Burnstein v. 5838 Condo., Inc., 430 So. 2d 572, 572 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983), when a trial court enters a preliminary injunction, it is an interlocutory order, and as such “there can be no prevailing party for the purpose of awarding attorney’s fees until there is an end to the litigation.... ” In Bum…
-
Diya Salame v. 1ST Priority Restoration, Inc., 221 So. 3d 706 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)…la. 3d DCA 2008) (holding that “[b]eeause stated causes of action remain in the instant lawsuit, it is impossible to determine the ‘substantially prevailing’ party until such time as all pending counts are resolved”); Burnstein v. 5838 Condo., Inc., 430 So. 2d 572, 572 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983) (“There can be no prevailing party for the purpose of awarding attorney’s fees until there is an end to the litigation as by judgment or other dispositive order.”) (emphasis added). Thus, the county court erred by determining…
Authorities Cited
- Ladner v. Plaza del Prado Condo. Ass'n, Inc., 423 So. 2d 927 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- N. Dade Water Co. v. Adken Land Co., 114 So. 2d 347 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959)
- Steinhardt v. E. Shores White House Ass'n, Inc., 413 So. 2d 785 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- Adoption HOT Line, Inc. v. State, 385 So. 2d 682 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- Midway Shopping Mall, Inc. v. Airtech AIR Conditioning, Inc., 253 So. 2d 900 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)
- Gray v. ST. Marys Kraft, 117 So. 2d 496 (Fla. 1959)