HHA BORROWER, LLC
v.
W. G. YATES & SONS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY AND HOLLY HILL I ASSOCIATES, LTD.
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.
Florida appellate court reversed attorney's fees award to construction contractor because both parties prevailed on significant issues, making it inequitable to award fees to either party.
When both parties prevail on significant issues in a construction lien dispute, neither party qualifies as the prevailing party under section 713.29, and attorney's fees must be denied to both.
[1] In a construction lien dispute where both parties prevail on significant issues, neither party qualifies as the prevailing party under section 713.29, Florida Statutes, a…
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“it would be inequitable to award attorney's fees to either party, because although both won on significant issues, they also both lost on significant issues”
Court's rationale for denying fees to both parties despite one party's initial prevailing party designation
HHA Borrower and W.G. Yates & Sons Construction Company engaged in a complex, protracted construction lien litigation where each party prevailed on di…
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 Significant Issues Test cases and more on FLexlaw
HARRIS, J.
HHA Borrower, LLC (“HHA”) appeals the trial court’s order finding that W.G. Yates & Sons Construction Company (“Yates”) was the prevailing party on the significant issues and thus entitled to an award of attorney’s fees and costs. This complex case, a highly contested and protracted construction lien litigation, involved multiple significant issues and each party prevailed on different ones. Under the specific facts and history of this case, it would be inequitable to award attorney’s fees to either party, because although both won on significant issues, they also both lost on significant issues. See Brevard Cty. Fair Ass’n, v. Cocoa Expo., 832 So. 2d 147 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). We find that the trial court abused its discretion in failing to find that HHA was also a prevailing party on significant issues in the case.
Therefore, we reverse the final order awarding attorney’s fees and costs to Yates and remand to the trial court with instructions to enter an order determining that neither party was the prevailing party under section 713.29, Florida Statutes (2017), and to deny both requests for attorney’s fees in this case. See Trytek v. Gabe Indus., 3 So. 3d 1194 (Fla. 2009); Prosperi v. Code, Inc., 626 So. 2d 1360 (Fla. 1993); Moritz v. Hoyt Enters. Inc., 604 So. 2d 807 (Fla. 1992); C.U. Assocs. v. R.B. Grove, Inc., 472 So. 2d 1177 (Fla. 1985).
REVERSED and REMANDED.
GROSSHANS, J., and BLECHMAN, M., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Moritz v. Hoyt Enters., Inc., 604 So. 2d 807 (Fla. 1992)
- Prosperi v. Code, Inc., 626 So. 2d 1360 (Fla. 1993)
- Trytek v. Gale Indus., Inc., 3 So. 3d 1194 (Fla. 2009)
- C.U. Assocs., Inc. v. R.B. Grove, Inc., 472 So. 2d 1177 (Fla. 1985)
- Brevard Cnty. Fair Ass'n, Inc. v. Cocoa Expo, Inc., 832 So. 2d 147 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)