MARLENE A. SMITH, BARRY T. WERBLOW AND BARI L. WERBLOW, HIS WIFE, AND ALAN G. EHRLICH, APPELLANTS,
v.
GWEN ADLER, BONNIE LURER, MARY HUGHART, BRAD ORVIETO, JEFFREY S. SINIAWSKY, AND JACARANDA LAKES HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION, INC., 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.
In a dispute over homeowner's association election procedures, the court reversed the trial court's denial of costs and attorney's fees to the appellants, holding that the appropriate test is whether the party succeeded on significant issues and achieved substantial relief, not whether the court controlled the litigation procedure.
A party is a prevailing party entitled to costs and attorney's fees when it succeeds on significant issues in litigation and achieves substantial relief sought, regardless of whether the trial court controlled the procedure or whether a final judgment was formally entered. The determination is based on results, not procedure.
[1] A party may be considered a prevailing party for the purpose of awarding costs and attorney's fees if they succeeded on a significant issue that achieved some of the bene…
[2] The determination of a prevailing party for costs and attorney's fees is governed by the results achieved, not the procedural posture of the case.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“succeeded on any significant issue in litigation which achieves some of the benefit the parties sought in bringing suit”
Establishes the test for determining prevailing party status under Hensley v. Eckerhart
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellants brought suit regarding the conduct of an election of a homeowner's association. The trial court took control of the litigation and the appe…
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 Hensley V. Eckerhart Standard cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We withdraw our previously issued opinion and substitute the following in its place.
We reverse the trial court’s order denying costs and attorney’s fees to appellant in this litigation over the conduct of an election of a homeowner’s association.
The trial court ruled that there was no prevailing party because the court itself took control of the litigation. The test is, however, whether the party “succeeded on any significant issue in litigation which achieves some of the benefit the parties sought in bringing suit.” Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433, 103 S.Ct. 1933, 1939, 76 L.Ed.2d 40 (1983), adopted in Pappert v. Mobilinium Associates V, 512 So. 2d 1096 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987). Thus, it is results, not procedure, which govern the determination. In this case the appellants secured most of the relief originally requested in the suit, and it matters not that the trial court controlled the procedure which secured the relief. Furthermore, the fact that no final judgment was entered is also not controlling where there is a functional equivalent of a judgment. See Augustin v. Health Options of South Florida, Inc., 580 So. 2d 314 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991).
However, we affirm that part of the award which denied recovery of costs and attorney’s fees against the homeowner’s association itself. There were no pleadings filed against the homeowner’s association and thus no request for costs and attorney’s fees. See Stockman v. Downs, 573 So. 2d 835 (Fla.1991). We cannot conclude under the facts of this case that the homeowner’s association waived an objection to the failure to plead the request for costs and attorney’s fees. Therefore, the order denying costs and fees against the association was not in error. We remand for further proceedings on the award of costs and attorney’s fees against the individual defendants.
DOWNEY, LETTS and WARNER, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
The Green Cos., Inc. v. Kendall Racquetball Inv., Ltd., 658 So. 2d 1119 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)…rty is to allow the trial judge to determine from the record which party in fact prevailed on the significant issues tried before the court.” Id. It is the result obtained which must govern the determination of which party prevailed. Smith v. Adler, 596 So. 2d 696 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992). In a breach of contract action, one party must prevail. Lucite Ctr., Inc. v. Mercede, 606 So. 2d 492, 493 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992) (citing Reinhart v. Miller, 548 So. 2d 1176, 1177 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989) (“Unless in the same lawsuit th…
-
Tubbs v. Mechanik Nuccio Hearne & Wester, P.A., 125 So. 3d 1034 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013)…not [the] procedure, which govern the determination’ of which party prevailed for purposes of awarding attorney’s fees[.]” Bessard v. Bessard, 40 So. 3d 775, 778 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (second and third alterations in original) (quoting Smith v. Adler, 596 So. 2d 696, 697 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)). Here, Mechanik Nuccio relies on the general rule in support of its argument that RC Highlands, the defendant in the foreclosure case filed in Highlands County, became the prevailing party in that case after the Tubbses vo…
-
Granoff v. Seidle, 915 So. 2d 674 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)…ee Moritz v. Hoyt Enters., Inc., 604 So. 2d 807 (Fla.1992); Zhang v. D.B.R. Asset Mgmt., Inc., 878 So. 2d 386 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004). The focus of the trial court in making the determination should be on the “result obtained.” See Zhang; Smith v. Adler, 596 So. 2d 696 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992). The trial court has no discretion to deny costs under this statute — the prevailing party must be awarded costs.2 [*678] Nevertheless, we apply the abuse of discretion standard of review when deciding whether the trial court pro…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (U.S. 1983)
- Stockman v. Downs, 573 So. 2d 835 (Fla. 1991)
- Augustin v. Health Options OF S. Fla., Inc., 580 So. 2d 314 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)
- Pappert v. Mobilinium Assocs. V., 512 So. 2d 1096 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)