EDWARD C. VINING, JR., APPELLANT,
v.
JUDITH C. CARMONA, APPELLEE
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.
Appellant Vining, who prevailed at trial against Carmona, appeals both the jury's damage award and the trial court's denial of attorney's fees. The appellate court affirmed, finding the jury verdict was supported by evidence and that attorney's fees were not recoverable absent statutory or contractual authority based on the theory of recovery used.
The jury verdict was supported by ample evidence and should not be disturbed. Vining was not entitled to recover attorney's fees because although he was the prevailing party, he did not recover based on the promissory note (which contained an attorney's fees provision) but rather on a theory of quantum meruit, for which no statutory or contractual authority for attorney's fees existed.
[1] A jury verdict will not be disturbed on appeal if the record contains ample evidence to support the findings.
[2] A party is entitled to recover attorneys' fees only if such recovery is provided for by statute or contract.
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“As the prevailing party at trial, appellant would only be entitled to recover his attorneys fees if such a recovery were provided for by statute or contract.”
Establishes the legal rule that attorney's fees are only recoverable when statutorily or contractually authorized.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant Vining was the plaintiff in a lawsuit against Judith C. Carmona. The jury rendered a verdict in Vining's favor, awarding him damages. Vining…
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 Promissory Note Terms cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, who was the plaintiff below, appeals both the amount awarded to him by the jury and the refusal of the trial court to award him the attorneys fees that he sought to recover in connection with the litigation.
Regarding appellant’s first point, we find that the record contains ample evidence to support the jury’s verdict. Accordingly, we will not disturb those findings. See McDonough Power Equipment Inc. v. Brown, 486 So. 2d 609 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986); Department of Transportation v. Hawkins Bridge Co., 457 So. 2d 525 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), review denied, 467 So. 2d 999 (Fla.1985); City of Hialeah v. Hutchins, 215 So. 2d 496 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968); Roberts v. Bushore, 183 So. 2d 708 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966).
Appellant’s second argument is also without merit. As the prevailing party at trial, appellant would only be entitled to recover his attorneys fees if such a recovery were provided for by statute or contract. See David v. Richman, 568 So. 2d 922 (Fla.1990); P.A.G. v. A.F., 564 So. 2d 266 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990); Israel v. Lee, 470 So. 2d 861 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Keys Lobster, Inc. v. Ocean Divers, Inc., 468 So. 2d 360 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 480 So. 2d 1295 (Fla.1985). There is no dispute that there is no statutory authority for the award of attorneys fees in the instant case. Appellant argues that he is entitled to an award of attorneys fees by virtue of the language in the promissory note signed by the appellee. This contention ignores the fact that the appellant’s recovery at trial was based upon the jury’s assessment of the amount of money that he was entitled to recover under a theory of quantum meruit. See Rosenberg v. Levin, 409 So. 2d 1016 (Fla.1982). Appellant did not make his recovery based upon the terms of the promissory note. Accordingly, the record does not support appellant’s contention that he is entitled to recover attorneys fees in connection with prosecuting his lawsuit against the appellee.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
K & M Elec. Supply, Inc. v. Moduplex Corp., 686 So. 2d 717 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)…o. 2d 1248, 1250 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). EAE did not recover under its subcontracts with Moduplex. Those subcontracts were terminated as of December 29, 1992, and damages were awarded under a quantum meruit basis. See id. at 1251-52; Vining v. Carmona, 596 So. 2d 154 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992); Douglass v. Jones, 422 So. 2d 352 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). Having found the award of attorney’s fees to be improper, the issues on cross-appeal as to the appropriate hourly rate, reduction of the lodestar fee, and entitlement to prej…
-
Ofer Zosman v. Brad Schiffer/Taxis, Inc., 697 So. 2d 1018 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)…torney’s fees. Because, as the prevailing party at trial, Schiffer would only be entitled to recover his attorney’s fees if such a recovery were provided for by statute or contract, see David v. Richman, 568 So. 2d 922 (Fla.1990); Vining v. Carmona, 596 So. 2d 154 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992), the trial judge erred in making that award. Thus, we affirm that part of the trial court’s order which determines Schiffer was entitled to payment for his services sought pursuant to the “shell contract.” We reverse that part of…
-
Barakat v. Sharp, 674 So. 2d 174 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)…easonably spent by the defendants’ attorney, the trial court should not include any time spent in defending the quantum meruit count since that count does not arise out of the contract that allows for the award of attorney’s fees. Vining v. Carmona, 596 So. 2d 154 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992). Affirmed, in part; reversed and remanded, in part.…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Rosenberg v. Levin, 409 So. 2d 1016 (Fla. 1982)
- Irv David v. Richman, 568 So. 2d 922 (Fla. 1990)
- Keys Lobster, Inc. v. Ocean Divers, Inc., 468 So. 2d 360 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)
- Israel v. Dayle T. LEE, 470 So. 2d 861 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)
- Roberts v. Bushore, 183 So. 2d 708 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966)
- McDONOUGH Power Equip., Inc. v. Brown, 486 So. 2d 609 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)
- Hall v. State, 215 So. 2d 496 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)
- Dep't OF Transp. v. Hawkins Bridge Co., 457 So. 2d 525 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)
- P.A.G. v. A.F., 564 So. 2d 266 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)