CHARLES G. FORD AND PHILLIP F. KEENE, APPELLANTS/CROSS-APPELLEES,
v.
CHARLES E. SWOPE, APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Tortious Interference With A Business Relationship cases and more on FLexlaw
SANDERLIN, Judge.
Appellants appeal from the trial court’s denial of their motion for attorney’s fees and appellee cross-appeals the trial court’s denial of his counterclaim for tortious interference with a business relationship. After a review of the record, we find the trial court erred in denying appellants attorney’s fees pursuant to the terms of the contract as they were the prevailing party in the litigation below. We, therefore, reverse and remand to the trial court to set a reasonable attorney’s fee in accordance with Florida Patient’s Compensation Fund v. Rowe, 472 So. 2d 1145 (Fla.1985).
We affirm the trial court’s denial of appellee’s counterclaim for tortious interference with a business relationship.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
SCHEB, A.C.J., and BOARDMAN, EDWARD F., (Ret.) J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Burnham v. Burnham, 884 So. 2d 390 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)…, 423 So. 2d 452, 453 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982) (holding that the statement of evidence was not “a sufficient substitute for ... a hearing transcript”). The factual findings in the judgment concerning custody thus must be affirmed. See Coleman v. Coleman, 492 So. 2d 782 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); Jolly v. Jolly, 572 So. 2d 566 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Heath v. Killian, 556 So. 2d 410, 412 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). Those findings reflect that there was a substantial basis to support the trial court’s custody determination, which wa…
-
Freedom Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Biltmore Constr. Co., Inc., 510 So. 2d 1141 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)…ously held that Rowe applies whether the awarded attorney’s fees are based on entitlement by statute or by contract. Massey v. Watson, 508 So. 2d 740 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); Appalachian, Inc. v. Ackmann, 507 So. 2d 150 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); Ford v. Swope, 492 So. 2d 782 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). To apply Rowe to contracts entered into prior to that decision does not impair any rights of Biltmore; rather, it merely sets out a procedural method for determination of those rights. See Lowe v. Price, 437 So. 2d 142 (Fla.1983)…
Authorities Cited
- Fla. Patient's Comp. Fund v. Rowe, 472 So. 2d 1145 (Fla. 1985)