HARRY R. REINHART, APPELLANT,
v.
ARTHUR C. MILLER, ET AL., 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 under a single contract with potentially independent claims, only one party can be deemed the prevailing party for attorney fees, not both.
Appellant and appellees were involved in a contract dispute where the jury found appellant breached, but the judge directed a verdict finding appellee…
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 Prevailing Party cases and more on FLexlaw
GARRETT, Judge.
Appellant appeals the trial court’s order determining appellees’ entitlement to attorney fees. The same order found appellant to be entitled to attorney fees which appel-lees cross appeal, after consolidation.
Although the jury found appellant breached the contract, the trial judge directed a verdict finding appellees also breached the contract. The trial judge later found both appellants and appellees to be the prevailing party and awarded attorney fees to each. We reverse. In a companion appeal, we negated this appealed order by remanding for a new trial on appellant’s breach of contract count. However, we write to address whether there can be two prevailing parties under one contract. We think not. Unless in the same lawsuit there are separate and distinct claims which would support independent actions, there can only be one prevailing party. When alternative theories of liability are litigated, only one party can prevail. Folta v. Bolton, 493 So. 2d 440 (Fla.1986). Either appellant or appellees breached the contract. The breach by one party to a contract releases the other party from performing any future contractual obligations. 11 Fla.Jur.2d Contracts § 169 (1979). Either appellant or appellees is entitled to attorney fees under the contract. Accord Katz v. Van Der Noord, 546 So. 2d 1047 (Fla.1989). If there could not be two breaches, there could not be two prevailing parties.
Accordingly, we reverse the attorney fees order and remand for further hearing to determine which party is entitled to attorney fees after the new trial concludes. See Publix Super Markets v. Cheesbro Roofing, 502 So. 2d 484 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987).
REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR FURTHER HEARING CONSISTENT HEREWITH.
HERSEY, C.J., and POLEN, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (14 total)
-
Moritz v. Hoyt Enters., Inc., 604 So. 2d 807 (Fla. 1992)…to pay $45,525.90. In a separate order, the trial court granted Hoyt’s motion to tax costs and attorney’s fees and denied a similar motion by the Moritzes. On appeal, the Fourth District Court of Appeal relied on its decision in Reinhart v. Miller, 548 So. 2d 1176 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989), and concluded that, because the Moritzes had breached the contract and Hoyt had been awarded damages on its counterclaim, Hoyt was the prevailing party for the purpose of awarding attorney’s fees. The dissenting judge adopted th…
-
The Green Cos., Inc. v. Kendall Racquetball Inv., Ltd., 658 So. 2d 1119 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)…he determination of which party prevailed. Smith v. Adler, 596 So. 2d 696 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992). In a breach of contract action, one party must prevail. Lucite Ctr., Inc. v. Mercede, 606 So. 2d 492, 493 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992) (citing Reinhart v. Miller, 548 So. 2d 1176, 1177 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989) (“Unless in the same lawsuit there are separate and distinct claims which would support independent actions, there can only be one prevailing party [under one contract].”). Whether Kendall and Scandinavian breached the park…
-
Anglia Jacs & Co., Inc. v. Dubin, 830 So. 2d 169 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)…tract contains alternative theories of liability for the same wrong, rather than separate and distinct claims, only one party can prevail in the same lawsuit. Lucite Ctr., Inc. v. Mercede, 606 So. 2d 492, 493 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992); Reinhart v. Miller, 548 So. 2d 1176, 1177 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989). “[T]he fairest test to determine who is the prevailing party is to allow the trial judge to determine from the record which party has in fact prevailed on the significant issues tried before the court.” Mercede, 606 So. 2d…
Previewing 3 of 14 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Folta v. Joseph Bolton, M.D., 493 So. 2d 440 (Fla. 1986)
- Dade Cnty. Pub. Safety Dep't & CNA Ins. Cos. v. Adams, 502 So. 2d 484 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)
- Brown v. State, 546 So. 2d 1047 (Fla. 1989)
- Katz v. VAN DER Noord, 546 So. 2d 1047 (Fla. 1989)