FRANCISCO PEREZ AND CLINICA FATIMA, INC., APPELLANTS,
v.
CLAUDIO DIAZ, M.D., P.A., 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.
Clinic Fatima and Francisco Perez appealed an order awarding attorney's fees to Dr. Claudio Diaz in a medical bill collection action. The court reversed, holding that Diaz was not the "prevailing party" required under Florida statutes to recover attorney's fees, since a third party paid the bill and the action was never resolved against the defendants.
The trial court's award of attorney's fees was reversed because the plaintiff did not qualify as the "prevailing party" required by the applicable statutes. The defendants resisted the action throughout, and the action was not resolved adversely against them; payment by a third party does not make the plaintiff a prevailing party.
[1] A party is not considered the "prevailing party" for the purpose of awarding attorney's fees under Florida Statutes § 57.105 and § 641.28 when a dispute is mooted by a th…
[2] A third party's payment of a debt does not, in itself, render the plaintiff the prevailing party in an action to collect that debt if the defendant resisted the action an…
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“The plaintiff below was not, as required by the above statutes, "the prevailing party" in the action below.”
Establishes the core holding that plaintiff failed to satisfy the statutory requirement for attorney's fees recovery.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceClaudio Diaz sued Clinica Fatima and Francisco Perez to collect on a medical bill. The defendants filed an answer and affirmative defenses. Before res…
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 Motion For Attorney'S Fees cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal by the defendants Clíni-ca Fatima, Inc. and Francisco Perez from an adverse final order awarding attorney’s fees to the plaintiff Claudio Diaz, M.D., P.A. in an action below to collect on a medical bill. It appears that after the action had been instituted below and the defendants had filed an answer and affirmative defenses, a stranger to this action, International Medical Centers, paid the plaintiff the amount due and owing on the subject medical bill. The defendants did not direct International Medical Centers to make this payment and the record is silent as to why the payment was made. Moreover, there was never any settlement between the parties or otherwise amicable resolution to this dispute; indeed, the plaintiff did not even take a voluntary dismissal in the cause.
We reverse the order under review because Sections 57.105 and 641.28, Florida Statutes (1985), the statutes on which the trial court relied to award the attorney’s fees herein, are inapplicable to this case. The plaintiff below was not, as required by the above statutes, “the prevailing party” in the action below. Indeed, the defendants resisted the instant action at all times, and the action itself was never resolved adversely against them if, indeed, it was resolved at all. Moreover, the fact that the said action was apparently mooted by International Medical Centers’ payment to the plaintiff does not make the plaintiff a “prevailing party” under the above statutes. See Del Valle v. Biltmore II Condominium Ass’n, 411 So. 2d 1356 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982).
The order under review is reversed, and the cause is remanded to the trial court with directions to deny the plaintiff’s motion for attorney’s fees.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- DEL Valle v. Biltmore II Condo. Ass'n, Inc., 411 So. 2d 1356 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)