FRANK N. ANDERSON, APPELLANT,
v.
WILLINGHAM REALGROWTH INVESTMENT FUND, LTD., 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.
Anderson appealed the trial court's refusal to award attorney's fees after being designated the prevailing party on an express contract claim. The appellate court, on second remand, reaffirmed that Anderson was entitled to attorney's fees and again remanded for determination of a reasonable amount, emphasizing that trial courts must comply with appellate mandates.
The appellate court held that the trial court must comply with the appellate mandate directing it to award attorney's fees to Anderson as the prevailing party on the express contract claim. The court reaffirmed that Anderson is entitled to recover attorney's fees relating to the successful defense of that claim and remanded for determination of a reasonable amount.
[1] A trial court must comply with the mandate of an appellate court.
[2] The mandate of an appellate court is a final judgment in the cause, and compliance is a ministerial act to be performed by the trial court.
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“We agree that Anderson is the prevailing party as to the express contract claim and he is entitled to recover attorney's fees relating to the successful defense of that claim.”
Establishes Anderson's entitlement to attorney's fees as the prevailing party on the express contract claim.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAnderson was a defendant in a contract dispute with Willingham Realgrowth Investment Fund. In the initial appeal, the appellate court determined Ander…
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 Mandate Of Appellate Court cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This court in Lochrane Engineering, Inc. and Frank N. Anderson v. Willingham Realgrowth Investment Fund, Ltd., 563 So. 2d 719 (Pla. 5th DCA 1990), rev. denied, 574 So. 2d 145 (Fla.1990) held:
We agree that Anderson is the prevailing party as to the express contract claim and he is entitled to recover attorney’s fees relating to the successful defense of that claim. Therefore, this case is remanded to the trial court for the determination of a reasonable amount of attorney’s fees for these services. [Emphasis added.]
On remand, the newly assigned trial judge determined that “said defendant is not entitled to fees”1 and awarded no attorney’s fees even though directed to do so by this court. It cannot always be expected that a trial court will agree with the opinion of the appellate court; nevertheless, it can and must be expected — under the order of things — that the trial court will comply with the mandate of the appellate court.2
We will try once again. We agree that Anderson is the prevailing party as to the express contract claim and he is entitled to recover attorney’s fees relating to the successful defense of that claim. Our previous opinion made this the law of the case. Therefore, this case is remanded to the trial court for determination of a reasonable amount of attorney’s fees.
REVERSED and REMANDED for strict compliance herewith.
DAUKSCH, W. SHARP and HARRIS, JJ., concur. . The explanation for the court’s action is in the transcript:
Here you are not a plaintiff who has won substantial relief; you’re a defendant who has lost the case. And it just doesn’t comport with reason that you be entitled to come in and seek these under all the facts and circumstances here, thus the court determining that you really haven’t been the prevailing party under the contract.
. See Nicholson v. Ariko, 565 So. 2d 843 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990):
The mandate of an appellate court is a final judgment in the cause, and compliance is a ministerial act to be performed by the trial court. [Citations omitted.] It is the duty of the trial court to enforce the mandate and not to stray from it. [Citations omitted.]
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Lochrane Eng'g, Inc. v. Willingham Realgrowth Inv. Fund, Ltd., 563 So. 2d 719 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)
- Nicholson v. Ariko, 565 So. 2d 843 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)