FRANK M. WILLIAMS, M.D., APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE,
v.
DOLPHIN REEF, LTD., ETC., APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT
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.
Dr. Williams appealed a judgment awarding $35,400 of his condominium deposits to Dolphin Reef, while Dolphin Reef cross-appealed seeking the full deposit amount plus attorney's fees and costs. The court affirmed the monetary judgment but reversed and remanded on the issue of attorney's fees, holding that Dolphin Reef as the prevailing party was entitled to recover reasonable attorney's fees and costs under the purchase agreement contracts.
The trial court correctly awarded $35,400 to Dolphin Reef based on substantial competent evidence, but erred in failing to award attorney's fees and costs to Dolphin Reef. Dolphin Reef was the prevailing party for purposes of the contractual attorney's fees provision despite not obtaining the full amount initially sought, because the court found Dr. Williams had not fulfilled his contractual obligations.
[1] A party is considered the prevailing party for the purpose of recovering attorney's fees and costs, even if they do not recover the full amount sought, as long as they ac…
[2] Contractual provisions for the award of attorney's fees and costs to the prevailing party in litigation arising under the contract are enforceable.
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“Both contracts provided, however, that if the seller was the prevailing party in any litigation arising under the contracts, the purchaser would be liable for the seller's reasonable attorney's fees and costs. Therefore, the court erred in failing to enforce the contracts.”
Establishes the contractual basis for awarding attorney's fees to the prevailing party.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDr. Williams entered into contracts to purchase two condominium units in Pinellas County, Florida, and deposited $52,500. When Dolphin Reef refused to…
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 Rescission Of Contract cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHOONOVER, Judge.
Appellant, Frank M. Williams, M.D., has appealed from a final judgment entered against him. The appellee, Dolphin Reef, Ltd., has cross-appealed. We find the trial court erred in failing to award attorney’s fees and court costs to the appellee, but affirm the judgment in all other respects.
This action arose out of certain contracts to purchase two condominium units in Pi-nellas County, Florida. After Dolphin Reef refused to cancel the contracts and return to Dr. Williams his deposits totaling $52,-500, Williams filed an action seeking declaratory relief and rescission of the contracts. Dolphin Reef counterclaimed, seeking to obtain the deposits as liquidated damages under the purchase agreements and to recover costs and attorney’s fees.
At the conclusion of a nonjury trial, a final judgment was entered which awarded the sum of $35,400 to Dolphin Reef and the balance of the funds on deposit to Dr. Williams. The court ordered each party to bear its own costs and attorney’s fees.
Dr. Williams filed a timely notice of appeal, claiming that the trial court erred in awarding $35,400 to Dolphin Reef. Dolphin Reef cross-appealed, claiming that the trial court erred in denying it the total amount deposited by Dr. Williams in addition to attorney’s fees and court costs.
Having reviewed the record, we find substantial competent evidence to support the judgment. This court may not re-evaluate the evidence and substitute its judgment for that of the trial. court. Guerrera v. Eldred Construction Corporation, 378 So. 2d 327 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980).
Both contracts provided, however, that if the seller was the prevailing party in any litigation arising under the contracts, the purchaser would be liable for the seller’s reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. Therefore, the court erred in failing to enforce the contracts.
We reject appellant’s contention that the appellee was not the prevailing party because neither party fully prevailed on its claim. The fact that Dolphin Reef was allowed to retain even a portion of the total deposits is evidence that the trial court found appellant had not fulfilled his contractual obligation. Dolphin Reef, therefore, was the prevailing party, even though the amount recovered was less than the amount initially sought in the counterclaim. Peter Marich & Associates, Inc. v. Powell, 365 So. 2d 754 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978). Accordingly, the trial court should have , awarded attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to the contract upon which Dolphin Reef counterclaimed and recovered. See Dynamic Builders, Inc. v. Tull, 365 So. 2d 1032 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979).
We, accordingly, reverse and remand for the award of costs and for the assessment of a reasonable attorney’s fee. We affirm the judgment in all other respects.
GRIMES, A.C.J., and OTT, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Folwell v. Bernard, 477 So. 2d 1060 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)…iversity of Miami, 474 So. 2d 239, 242 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). Although the appellate court may disagree with the result reached by the jury, it is not empowered to substitute its view of the evidence for that of the jury. Williams v. Dolphin Reef, LTD, 455 So. 2d 640 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). We adhere to the foregoing principles. The appellees rest a substantial portion of their position in support of the judgment upon International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 675 v. Lassitter, 295 So. 2d 634 (Fla. 4th DCA 1…
-
Thomas and Virginia Daniels v. Arthur Johannessen, Inc., 496 So. 2d 914 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)…minium Ass’n. v. Forte, 397 So. 2d 959 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), rev. denied, 408 So. 2d 1092 (Fla.1981). Notwithstanding that the Daniels did not recoup the entire deposit, they did recover more than they were offered. See Williams v. Dolphin Reef, Ltd., 455 So. 2d 640 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984) (appellee was prevailing party and entitled to contractual attorney’s fees even though recovery was less than sought in initial counterclaim). Furthermore, the Daniels, as the “party recovering judgment” under section 57.041, Flo…
-
Moritz v. Hoyt Enters., Inc., 576 So. 2d 351 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)…eld that the party who recovers the larger portion of a sum in dispute is the prevailing party for purposes of an attorney’s fee award, even though that party was found to have breached the contract. While language in Williams v. Dolphin Reef, Ltd., 455 So. 2d 640 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984), relied upon by appellee, does imply that Dolphin Reef was the prevailing party because the other party had breached the contract, the facts show that Dolphin Reef was the prevailing party because it was entitled to retain a large…
Authorities Cited
- Peter Marich & Assocs., Inc. v. Powell, 365 So. 2d 754 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978)
- Dynamic Builders, Inc. v. Harold Tull & Helyn Tull, 365 So. 2d 1032 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)
- Guerrera v. Eldred Constr. Corp., 378 So. 2d 327 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)