ADERWEL HOLDINGS, LTD., ETC.
v.
AQUA TREES, LLC, ETC.
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 Third District Court of Appeal reversed a lower court's denial of attorney's fees, holding that a defendant is the prevailing party entitled to fees when a plaintiff voluntarily dismisses an unfounded lawsuit, even with minimal pre-trial activity. This decision clarifies that contractual fee provisions can cover defense against baseless claims.
Yes, the defendant is the prevailing party entitled to contractual attorney's fees when the plaintiff voluntarily dismisses an unfounded lawsuit. The contract's broad fee provision extended to defending against such claims.
[1] When a plaintiff voluntarily dismisses an action, the defendant is the prevailing party.
[2] A broad fee provision in a contract that extends to defending against breaches of any provision of the contract may allow for recovery of attorney's fees even after a vol…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“when a plaintiff voluntarily dismisses an action, the defendant is the prevailing party.”
Establishes the general rule for prevailing party status after a voluntary dismissal.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAqua Trees, LLC (appellee) filed a breach of contract lawsuit against Aderwel Holdings, Ltd. (appellant). After Aderwel retained counsel and began pre…
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 De Novo Review cases and more on FLexlaw
MILLER, J. In this appeal, appellant challenges an order denying its motion for contractual prevailing party attorney's fees filed after appellee voluntarily dismissed an unfounded breach of contract lawsuit.
Our de novo review yields the inescapable conclusion that we must reverse because the parties' contract contains a broad fee provision that extends to defending against breaches of any provision of the contract and appellant indisputably incurred reasonable fees when it was forced to retain counsel and provide proof of payment to avoid further litigation.
See Fallstaff Grp., Inc. v. MPA Brickell Key, LLC, 143 So. 3d 1139, 1142 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) (applying de novo review of construction contract provisions); see also Catamaran B.Y., Inc. v. Giordano, 337 So. 3d 439, 441 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022) (“The general rule in Florida is that 'when a plaintiff voluntarily dismisses an action, the defendant is the prevailing party.” (quoting Thornber v. City of Fort Walton Beach, 568 So. 2d 914, 919 (Fla. 1990))); Viler v. Universal Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 386 So. 3d 941, 943 (Fla. 4th DCA 2024) (“This general rule applies even in situations . . . where limited pre-trial activity had occurred before the action was voluntarily dismissed.") (citation omitted); Tubbs v. Mechanik Nuccio Hearne & Wester, P.A., 125 So. 3d 1034, 1041 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (“[C]ourts must look to the substance of litigation outcomes—not just procedural maneuvers—in determining the issue of which party has prevailed in an action.") (citing Padow, M.D., P.A. v. Knollwood Club Ass’n, Inc., 839 So. 2d 744, 746 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)); Sopena v. Rowland Coffee Roasters, Inc., 716 So. 2d 799, 800–01 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998) (holding that the defendant was the prevailing party after the plaintiff's voluntary dismissal).
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Thornber v. City OF Fort Walton Beach, 568 So. 2d 914 (Fla. 1990)
- Walter D. Padow, M.D., P.A. v. Knollwood Club Ass'n, Inc., 839 So. 2d 744 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)
- Tubbs v. Mechanik Nuccio Hearne & Wester, P.A., 125 So. 3d 1034 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013)
- The Fallstaff Grp., Inc. v. MPA Brickell KEY, LLC, 143 So. 3d 1139 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014)
- Marcio Sopena v. Rowland Coffee Roasters, Inc., 716 So. 2d 799 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)
- Catamaran B.Y., Inc. v. Deren Giordano, 337 So. 3d 439 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022)
- Leena Margit Viler v. Universal Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 386 So. 3d 941 (Fla. 4th DCA 2024)