JUAN VICENTE PEREZ SANDOVAL, ET AL., PETITIONERS,
v.
BANCO DE COMERCIO, S.A., ET AL., RESPONDENTS
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 reviewed a district court decision regarding attorney's fees, approving the decision but clarifying that while entitlement to attorney's fees must generally be pled, this requirement can be waived if the opposing party has notice and acquiesces to the claim.
While generally a claim for attorney's fees must be pled, this requirement is waived if a party has notice of the claim and acquiesces to it.
The case involved a conflict between two district court decisions on whether attorney's fees must be pled. The parties in the current case stipulated …
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.
McDONALD, Justice.
Pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(3), Florida Constitution, we review Perez Sandoval v. Banco de Comercio, 566 So. 2d 828 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990), because of conflict with Stockman v. Downs, 573 So. 2d 835 (Fla.1991). In Perez Sandoval the district court affirmed a judgment for attorney’s fees and held that it is not necessary to plead entitlement to attorney’s fees in a complaint. In Stockman, on the other hand, we held that a claim for attorney’s fees, whether based on statute or contract, must be pled.
Stockman, however, recognizes an exception to its general rule: “Where a party has notice that an opponent claims entitlement to attorney’s fees, and by its conduct recognizes or acquiesces to that claim or otherwise fails to object to the failure to plead entitlement, that party waives any objection to the failure to plead a claim for attorney’s fees.” 573 So. 2d at 838. The exception clearly applies in this case. All parties knew that the recovery of attorney’s fees was an issue and stipulated that “the trial court should decide whether Venezuelan law provides that the prevailing party in this action is entitled to recover its fees and costs.”
We, therefore, approve the decision under review, but disapprove the suggestion that in all circumstances there is no requirement to plead entitlement to attorney’s fees. We choose not to discuss the other issues raised by the petitioners.
It is so ordered. SHAW, C.J., and OVERTON, BARKETT, GRIMES, KOGAN and HARDING, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Green v. SUN Harbor Homeowners' Ass'n, Inc., 685 So. 2d 23 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)…either a pleading nor a motion raising the issue of attorney’s fees. Nor do any of the exceptions to Stockman apply. See Ganz v. HZJ, Inc., 605 So. 2d 871 (Fla.1992) (section 57.105(1), Florida Statutes (1991)); Sandoval v. Banco de Comercio, S. A., 585 So. 2d 934 (FIa.1991) (waiver by conduct). The October 31, 1994 settlement letter to the association fails to satisfy Stockman in two ways. First, it is an out of court communication, not a paper filed of record. Pleadings and motions distill the issues in lit…
-
Fernandez v. Crespo, 98 So. 3d 1198 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012)…e the record establishes the applicability of the exception to the Stockman doctrine which applies when the opposing party raises no objection to a clearly asserted claim to fees. See Stockman, 573 So. 2d at 838; Sandoval v. Banco de Comercio, S.A., 585 So. 2d 934 (Fla.1991); Save on Cleaners of Pembroke II v. Verde Pines City Ctr. Plaza, LLC, 14 So. 3d 295 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009); Storob v. Sphere Drake Ins., 730 So. 2d 375 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999); Dep’t of Health & Rehab. Servs. v. Coyle, 624 So. 2d 400 (Fla. 5th DC…
-
Rabbit Hill Homeowners Ass'n, Inc. v. Cory, 976 So. 2d 663 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)…ing party, “by its conduct recognizes or acquiesces to th[e] claim or otherwise fails to object to the failure to plead entitlement.” Id. at 838. The court has since revisited this matter on several occasions. In Sandoval v. Banco de Comercio, S.A., 585 So. 2d 934, 934 (Fla.1991), it reaffirmed both of the Stockman holdings — that a claim for attorney’s fees must be pled and that an opposing party that, “by its conduct recognizes or acquiesces to th[e] claim or otherwise fails to object to the failure to plea…
Authorities Cited
- Stockman v. Downs, 573 So. 2d 835 (Fla. 1991)
- Sandoval v. Banco de Comercio, S.A., 566 So. 2d 828 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)