TROPICAL RESOURCES, INC., CROSS-APPELLANT,
v.
ROBERT KOGER AND JACQUELINE KOGER, CROSS-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.
Trial court erred in denying attorney fees to the prevailing party for defending against counterclaims that arose out of a land sale contract containing an attorney fees provision.
A prevailing party in contract litigation is entitled to attorney fees for defending against counterclaims that arise out of the contract, and the trial court must determine which counterclaims are products of the contract before denying such fees.
[1] A prevailing party in contract litigation is entitled to attorney fees for defending against counterclaims that arise out of the contract when the contract contains an at…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“We hold that it was error for the trial court to disregard the explicit language of the contract and deny attorney fees for Tropical's defense of the Kogers' claims without first determining if any counts of the counterclaim arose out of the contract.”
Court's holding on the standard for awarding attorney fees in contract disputes with fee-shifting provisions.
Tropical Resources sued the Kogers for breach of a land sale contract seeking specific performance or damages; the Kogers counterclaimed on multiple t…
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 Fee-Shifting Provisions cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Tropical Resources, Inc. sued the Kogers seeking specific performance or damages for breach of a land sale contract; the Kogers counterclaimed under a number of theories. The contract between the parties specifically provided that the prevailing party is entitled to attorney fees and costs in connection with any litigation involving the buyer and seller arising out of the contract. Finding that the Kogers had breached the contract, the trial court entered final judgment in favor of Tropical on its contract claim and against the Kogers on all counts of the counterclaim. Tropical was awarded attorney fees on its breach of contract claim but was denied attorney fees for its defense of the counterclaim.
We hold that it was error for the trial court to disregard the explicit language of the contract and deny attorney fees for Tropical’s defense of the Kogers’ claims without first determining if any counts of the counterclaim arose out of the contract. Erickson Enter., Inc. v. Louis Wohl & Sons, Inc., 422 So. 2d 1085 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Brickell Bay Club Condominium Ass’n v. Forte, 397 So. 2d 959 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 408 So. 2d 1092 (Fla.1981). Should the trial court find that some or all of the Kogers’ claims are products of the contract, Tropical is entitled to an award of reasonable attorney fees for the defense of those claims. See Keys Lobster, Inc. v. Ocean Divers, Inc., 468 So. 2d 360, 363 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 480 So. 2d 1295 (Fla.1985). The remaining points presented are without merit.
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Vistaco, Inc. v. Prestige Props., Inc., 559 So. 2d 744 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)…based on the same contract, as well as on his own action, defense of the counterclaim is part and parcel of the original action, and plaintiff is entitled to a fee for defending the counterclaim as well. See also Tropical Resources, Inc. v. Roger, 524 So. 2d 1152 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988), and Berryer v. Hertz, 522 So. 2d 510 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). Because the trial court erred in declining to award fees to appellant for successfully defending against some of ap-pellee’s counterclaims, we reverse and remand with direc…
Authorities Cited
- Brickell BAY Club Condo. Ass'n, Inc. v. Forte, 397 So. 2d 959 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- Keys Lobster, Inc. v. Ocean Divers, Inc., 468 So. 2d 360 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)
- Erickson Enters., Inc. v. Louis Wohl & Sons, Inc., 422 So. 2d 1085 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)