VISTACO, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
PRESTIGE PROPERTIES, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLEE

Fla. 1st DCA | 1992-04-13
No. 91-01103
BOOTH, WOLF, and KAHN, JJ., concur.
597 So. 2d 356 Florida District Court of Appeal, First District (1992)

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.


Holding

The trial court on remand exceeded this court's mandate by considering new evidence to deny attorney fees.


Facts & Procedural History

Following a prior reversal and remand, the trial court considered new evidence regarding the illegality of the attorney-client agreement to deny Vista…

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.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

This cause is before us on appeal from an order denying a claim for attorney fees after remand from this court’s reversal in Vistaco, Inc. v. Prestige Properties, Inc., 559 So. 2d 744 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990) (Vistaco I).

The facts of the underlying action are set forth in Vistaco I, wherein this court reversed in part an award of attorney fees and remanded for further consideration in accordance with the principles stated therein.

At the hearing following remand, Prestige claimed that Vistaco was not entitled to an award of attorney fees because the attorney-client agreement was illegal. The trial court agreed and denied Vistaco’s claim for attorney fees, holding that the agreement between Vistaco and its attorney was void.

In reaching this result, the court considered evidence which, although known and available to the parties, was not raised in the initial fee hearing or on the first appeal to this court. We hold, therefore, that the trial court on remand, went beyond this court’s mandate.

Accordingly, the order is reversed and the case remanded for entry of an order awarding attorney fees in accordance with Vistaco I.

BOOTH, WOLF, and KAHN, JJ., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw