ALTAMONTE HITCH AND TRAILER SERVICE, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, AND C.R. FOREMAN, APPELLANTS,
v.
U-HAUL COMPANY OF EASTERN FLORIDA, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, AND AMERCO, INC., A FOREIGN CORPORATION DOING BUSINESS IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEES
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.
The court held that attorney's fees for trial work could not be awarded against C.R. Foreman because he was not properly named in the counterclaim, but appellate attorney's fees were permissible. Costs were affirmed against both appellants.
[1] The body of a complaint, not the caption, determines who is a party to the action.
[2] A party seeking attorney's fees based on a contract must specifically allege and request such an award.
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 intelligenceAppellants sued appellees for breach of a lease agreement. Appellees prevailed on the lease and other counts, and the judgment was affirmed on appeal.…
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 Florida Rule Of Appellate Procedure 9.400(B) cases and more on FLexlaw
SHARP, Judge.
C.R. Foreman and Altamonte Hitch and Trailer Service, Inc. appeal from an order apportioning costs and attorney’s fees against them after an appeal on the main action. The order appealed from was a $9,000.00 award for attorney’s fees ($7,000.00 for trial work and $2,000.00 for appellate work), pursuant to our direction and remand.1 We affirm as to the appellant, Altamonte Hitch and Trailer Service, Inc., but we reverse in part, and affirm in part, as to C.R. Foreman.
Appellants commenced this lawsuit by filing a complaint and an amended complaint against appellees. Involved in some of the counts were assertions that appel-lees had breached a lease agreement entered into between the parties. Thereupon appellees filed a counterclaim which contained one count based on the lease (Count III), in which appellee claimed past due rent and other sums due under the lease. After a trial, appellees prevailed on the lease and other counts, and appellants were denied any relief. This judgment was appealed and was affirmed.2
The lease was executed by both appellants and it provided for payment of attorney’s fees by the “prevailing party.” Ap-pellees’ answer failed to request an award of attorney’s fees, although the appellees’ counterclaim did so. However, the counterclaim was directed solely at Altamonte Hitch.
Although C.R. Foreman is listed as a plaintiff in the caption of the counterclaim, his name does not appear anywhere in the body as a person against whom relief was sought. The general rule is that the body of the complaint, and not the caption, determines who is a party to the action. Weavil v. Myers, 243 N.C. 386, 90 S.E. 2d 733 (1956); Motor Credit Corp. v. Ray Guy’s Trailer Court, Inc., 6 N.J.Super. 563, 70 A. 2d 102 (1949); and Morisse v. Billau, 70 Ohio App. 215, 45 N.E. 2d 798 (1941). The naming of an individual or entity in the caption is not a sufficient basis to warrant inclusion in the action if the party is not mentioned in the body of the complaint. It would seem that a similar rule applies to counterclaims.
It therefore follows that appellees failed to plead their right to be awarded attorney’s fees against C.R. Foreman, based on the lease provision. In order to support an award of attorney’s fees, when the right is based on a contract rather than a statute, the party entitled to such an award must specifically allege and request such an award. Brown v. Gardens by the Sea South Condominium Association, 424 So. 2d 181 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Ocala Music & Marine Center v. Caldwell, 389 So. 2d 222 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Since the award here could only be based on the contract, and the counterclaim was not sufficient to include Foreman personally, we must reverse the $7,000.00 award against him for attorney’s fees at the trial level.
In order for an appellate court to make an award of attorney’s fees for appellate work, a timely motion must be filed and there must be a legal substantive basis for the award.3 There is no requirement that they be pled below.4 Here, the substantive legal basis for such an award was the contract which provided for an award of attorney’s fees to the prevailing party.5 The amended final judgment, which was affirmed by us on appeal, indicates that appellees were the prevailing parties on both the complaint and the counterclaim. Even though Foreman was not properly made a party to the counterclaim,6 he was clearly a proper party to the complaint. Therefore, under the language of the contract provision, and Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.400(b), appellees are entitled to recover appellate attorney’s fees as prevailing parties on the complaint, and prevailing parties on the main appeal. We therefore affirm the award of appellate attorney’s fees in the sum of $2,000.00.
The award of costs of $566.40 is affirmed against both Foreman and Altamonte Hitch. Section 57.041, Florida Statutes (1983) provides that the party recovering judgment shall recover all his legal costs and charges. Since appellants were the parties recovering judgment on the complaint, they are entitled to this award.
REVERSED IN PART; AFFIRMED IN PART.
UPCHURCH, C.J., and DAUKSCH, J., concur. . Altamonte Hitch & Trailer Service, Inc. v. U-Haul Co. of Eastern Florida and Amerco, Inc., 483 So. 2d 852 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986).
. Altamonte Hitch & Trailer Service, Inc. v. U-Haul Co. of Eastern Florida and Amerco, Inc., 468 So. 2d 492 (Fla. 5th DCA), review denied, 476 So. 2d 672 (Fla.1985).
. Fla.R.App.P. 9.400(b) and Committee Note (b).
. Id.
. If either party ... brings an action ... the prevailing party in any such action, on trial or appeal, shall be entitled to reasonable attorneys fees to be paid by the losing party as fixed by the court.
. Thus, appellees could be considered to be prevailing parties only against Altamonte Hitch and not Foreman on the counterclaim.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Stockman v. Downs, 573 So. 2d 835 (Fla. 1991)…d 636 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967), cert. denied, 211 So. 2d 556 (Fla.1968), but that attorney’s fees sought pursuant to contract must be pled. E.g., Millard v. Brannan, 553 So. 2d 1248 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989); Altamonte Hitch & Trailer Serv., Inc. v. U-Haul Co., 498 So. 2d 1346 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); Nour v. All State Pipe Supply Co., 487 So. 2d 1204 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). The Fourth District Court of Appeal in this case and the Third District Court of Appeal in Protean Investors, Inc. v. Travel [*837] Etc., Inc., 519 So. 2d…
-
Protean Invs., Inc. v. Travel ETC., Inc., 519 So. 2d 7 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)…imely post-judgment motion, require that we affirm. We recognize that this court’s holding in Marrero differs from the result reached by other district courts of appeal. See, e.g., Altamonte Hitch & Trailer Serv., Inc. v. U-Haul Co. of Eastern Fla., 498 So. 2d 1346 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); Nour v. All State Pipe Supply Co., 487 So. 2d 1204 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Coons v. Shriver, 429 So. 2d 27 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); Brown v. Gardens By the Sea South Condominium Ass’n, 424 So. 2d 181, 182 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983). However, i…
-
Beseau v. Kirit Bhalani, M.D., 904 So. 2d 641 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)…he complaint makes clear that her claims were made solely as personal representative of the estate. Thus, Appellant was never a party to the action in her individual capacity. Altamonte Hitch & Trailer Service, Inc. v. U-Haul Co. of Eastern Florida, 498 So. 2d 1346, 1348 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986) (the body of the complaint, not the caption, determines who is party to action). Because Appellant, individually, was never a party to the proceeding, the entry of judgments against her was erroneous, notwithstanding the la…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Brown v. Gardens BY THE SEA S. Condo. Ass'n, 424 So. 2d 181 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)
- Ocala Music & Marine Ctr. v. Caldwell, 389 So. 2d 222 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)
- Altamonte Hitch & Trailer Serv., Inc. v. U-Haul Co. OF E. Fla., 483 So. 2d 852 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)
- Altamonte Hitch & Trailer Serv., Inc. v. U-Haul Co. OF E. Fla., 468 So. 2d 492 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)