THE LAKES OF EMERALD HILLS, APPELLANT,
v.
WARREN E. SILVERMAN AND JUDITH G. SILVERMAN, HIS WIFE, 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 affirmed the trial court's order requiring each party to pay its own attorney's fees in a homeowners' association billing dispute, holding that neither the association's bylaws nor the cited statutes supported an award of fees to the association.
A homeowners' association is not entitled to attorney's fees under its bylaws or under Florida Statutes sections 718.303(1), 719.303(1), or 57.105 in a dispute over billing for security services.
[1] A homeowners' association seeking attorney's fees in a dispute with homeowners over billing for services must establish entitlement under applicable bylaws or statute, in…
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 intelligenceA homeowners' association billed homeowners (the Silvermans) for certain security services and sought attorney's fees when the homeowners disputed the…
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 Attorney'S Fees Under Fla. Stat. § 57.105 cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We affirm the order of the trial court, determining that each side should pay its own attorney’s fees and costs, in this action between homeowners and the homeowners’ association as to whether appellees (Silverman, etc.) were properly billed for certain security services hired by the association. Neither the homeowners’ association bylaws, nor the statutes relied upon by appellant, sections 718.303(1) and 719.303(1), Florida Statutes (1987), support appellant’s theory as to entitlement to attorney’s fees. Neither is appellant clearly entitled to attorney’s fees as the “prevailing party” nor under section 57.105, Florida Statutes (1987).
Notwithstanding our affirmance, we wish to point out that the appellee has the responsibility to support the trial court’s ruling or concede error and to assist the appellate court through the medium of a responsive brief. Cain v. Cain, 549 So. 2d 1161 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989); Slomovic v. Ves Carpenter Contractors, Inc., 292 So. 2d 60 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974). In this case appellees neither filed a brief nor provided us any written reason for their failure to do so. While this court recognizes the economic realities of compensating appellate counsel in a ease of this nature, at the very least, there should be some written communication to the court explaining the failure to provide such brief.
ANSTEAD, WALDEN and POLEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Cain v. Cain, 549 So. 2d 1161 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)
- Zdenka Slomovic v. VES Carpenter Contractors, Inc., 292 So. 2d 60 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974)