SALISBURY CONSTRUCTION CORP., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
FAY MITCHELL, 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.
Salisbury Construction appeals the denial of its motion for attorney's fees and costs in a mechanic's lien foreclosure action. The court held that Salisbury was the prevailing party and entitled to attorney's fees as a matter of right, but that costs remain discretionary with the trial court.
Salisbury was the prevailing party in the mechanic's lien action and is entitled to attorney's fees as a matter of right under section 713.29, even though it did not recover the full amount sought. However, costs are discretionary with the trial judge, and the denial of costs is affirmed.
[1] A party who successfully forecloses a mechanic's lien is considered the prevailing party for the purpose of recovering attorney's fees, even if the award is less than the…
[2] A prevailing party in a mechanic's lien action is entitled to attorney's fees as a matter of right.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“Salisbury, even though it was not granted the full sum prayed for, was still the "prevailing party" in the mechanic's lien action.”
Establishes that prevailing party status does not require recovery of the full amount claimed
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSalisbury Construction obtained a final judgment for a mechanic's lien against Fay Mitchell in the amount of $367.00 (calculated from a claimed lien o…
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 Discretionary Costs cases and more on FLexlaw
GUNTHER, Judge.
Plaintiff, Salisbury, appeals an order denying its motion to amend the final judgment to award it attorney’s fees pursuant to section 713.29, Florida Statutes (1985), and costs. Salisbury contends it was the prevailing party in an action to foreclose a mechanic’s lien and was therefore entitled to an award of attorney’s fees and costs. We reverse as to attorney’s fees and affirm as to costs.
A final judgment was entered in favor of Salisbury and against the defendant, Mitchell, for a mechanic’s lien in the amount of $367.00 calculated as follows:
TOTAL AMOUNT OF LIEN $1,327.00
LESS SET-OFF FOE DAMAGES AWARDED AGAINST PLAINTIFF 960.00
NET AMOUNT OWED PLAINTIFF FROM DEFENDANT $ 367.00
The final judgment also included a ruling, inter alia, that under the facts of this case, it would be inequitable for either par ty to be assessed attorney’s fees or court costs of the other party.
Salisbury, even though it was not granted the full sum prayed for, was still the “prevailing party” in the mechanic’s lien action. This is so because Salisbury’s award of damages was in excess of Mitchell’s, who also received less than what was claimed as a set-off. Hub Cap Heaven, Inc. v. Goodman, 431 So. 2d 323 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); American Insulation v. Pruitt, 378 So. 2d 839 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). As the prevailing party, Salisbury is entitled to attorney’s fees as a matter of right. Sanfilippo v. Larry Giacin Title Co., Inc., 390 So. 2d 413 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980). Costs, however, are discretionary with the trial judge, and we affirm the denial of costs. Peter Marich & Associates, Inc. v. Powell, 365 So. 2d 754 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978).
AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED.
DOWNEY and GLICKSTEIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Malagon v. Solari, 566 So. 2d 352 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)…[1116] 1117 [524 So. 2d 501] (3rd DCA 1988). This was clearly error. It is well settled that a plaintiff is considered the prevailing party if he recovers less than he sued for, so long as he recovers something. Salisbury Const. Corp. v. Mitchell, 491 So. 2d 308 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986); American Insulation of Fort Walton Beach, Inc. v. Pruitt, 378 So. 2d 839 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979); Peter Marich & Assocs., Inc. v. Powell, 365 So. 2d 754 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978); R.F. Driggers Const. Co. v. Bagli, 313 So. 2d 450 (Fla. 2d…
-
Metro-Centre Assocs. v. Env't Eng'rs, Inc., 522 So. 2d 967 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)…tal’s mechanics’ lien. Environmental is correct in its assertion that a holder of a mechanics’ lien who recovers a judgment in any amount is the “prevailing party” and is entitled to an award of attorney’s fees. Salisbury Constr. Corp. v. Mitchell, 491 So. 2d 308 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986); Hub Cap Heaven, [*969] Inc. v. Goodman, 431 So. 2d 323 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983).2 Environmental also accurately states the proposition espoused in Scka-bert that a landowner is not the “prevailing party” and is not entitled to attorne…
-
Gale Indus., Inc. v. Trytek, 960 So. 2d 805 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)…if the claimant recovers only a nominal amount. See DCC Constructors, Inc. v. Yacht Club Southeastern, Inc., 839 So. 2d. 731 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003); Kenmark Constr., Inc. v. Cronin, 765 So. 2d 129 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Salisbury Constr. Corp. v. Mitchell, 491 So. 2d 308 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986); Hub Cap Heaven, Inc. v. Goodman, 431 So. 2d 323 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). See also Peter Marich & Assocs., Inc. v. Powell, 365 So. 2d 754 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978) (prevailing party is one in whose favor an affirmative judgment is rendered e…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Peter Marich & Assocs., Inc. v. Powell, 365 So. 2d 754 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978)
- Sanfilippo v. Larry Giacin Tile Co., Inc., 390 So. 2d 413 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)
- Am. Insulation OF Fort Walton Beach, Inc. v. Pruitt, 378 So. 2d 839 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)
- Mini-Hospital, Inc. v. J.P. Realty, Inc., 431 So. 2d 323 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- HUB CAP Heaven, Inc. v. Goodman, 431 So. 2d 323 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)