LUCITE CENTER, INC., APPELLANT/CROSS APPELLEE,
v.
JOHN F. MERCEDE, APPELLEE/CROSS APPELLANT
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.
Lucite Center sued John Mercede for breach of a commercial lease, seeking return of its security deposit. The trial court found both parties in breach but awarded Lucite its deposit while denying attorney's fees to either party on the ground neither was the "prevailing party." The appellate court reversed, holding that in breach of contract actions, one party must prevail and be awarded attorney's fees.
In a breach of contract action, one party must prevail, and that prevailing party is entitled to attorney's fees and costs under the contract. The trial court erred in finding both parties in breach while awarding relief to one party and simultaneously declaring neither party the prevailing party.
[1] In a breach of contract action, one party must prevail.
[2] A trial court cannot find both parties in breach, award one party the return of a security deposit, find neither party prevailed, and then deny attorney's fees and costs…
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“In a breach of contract action, one party must prevail.”
Establishes the fundamental principle that in contract breach cases, there cannot be a mutual breach with no prevailing party.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLucite Center brought a complaint against John Mercede for breach of a lease agreement, seeking return of its security deposit and damages. Mercede co…
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 Counterclaim For Damages cases and more on FLexlaw
GUNTHER, Judge.
This is an appeal and cross appeal from a final judgment. Lueite Center, Inc. brought a one count complaint against John Mercede for breach of a lease agreement, seeking the return of its security deposit and damages. Mercede counterclaimed for damages, alleging that Lueite breached the lease agreement. The trial court entered the following final judgment:
1. Neither party met their burden of proof sufficiently to be deemed a “prevailing party.”
2. Defendant breached the lease by failing to have the premises ready on time.
3. Plaintiff breached the lease by failing to provide prior written notice of the “fit-up” requirements.
4. Plaintiff breached the lease by improperly terminating it.
5. Plaintiff shall recover his security deposit of $7,700.00.
6. Each party to bear their own attorney fees and costs.
We reverse.
Lueite argues that the trial court erred in denying its request for attorney’s fees and costs. According to Lueite, since it was awarded the return of its security deposit, it was the prevailing party and therefore entitled to attorney’s fees and costs.
Mercede, on the other hand, argues that he was excused from performing under the lease agreement because Lueite breached two conditions precedent to Mercede’s obligation to perform. Therefore, Mercede asserts, the trial court erred in awarding Lueite the return of its security deposit and in finding that Mercede breached the lease agreement.
The issue is whether a trial court can find both parties to a contract in breach, award one party the return of its security deposit, find that neither party prevailed, and then deny attorney’s fees and costs to both parties on the grounds that neither was a prevailing party.
In a breach of contract action, one party must prevail. See Miller v. Reinhart, 548 So. 2d 1176, 1177 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989). As this court stated in Miller,
Either appellant or appellees breached the contract. The breach by one party to a contract releases the other party from performing any future contractual obligations. 11 Fla.Jur.2d Contracts § 169 (1979). Either appellant or appellees is entitled to attorney fees under the contract. Accord Katz v. Van Der Noord, 546 So. 2d 1047 (Fla.1989).
Id.
Likewise, in the instant case, either Lueite or Mercede breached the contract and either Lueite or Mercede is entitled to attorney’s fees and costs under the contract. Therefore, upon remand, the trial court shall determine which party breached the contract. Once the trial court makes that determination, the trial court must determine who is the prevailing party and then award attorney’s fees and costs to the prevailing party. “[T]he fairest test to determine who is the prevailing party is to allow the trial judge to determine from the record which party has in fact prevailed on the significant issues tried before the court.” Moritz v. Hoyt Enters., Inc., 604 So. 2d 807, 810 (Fla. July 23, 1992). Thus, on remand, the trial court in the instant case shall determine which party breached, which party prevailed on the significant issues and award attorney’s fees accordingly-
In conclusion, we hold that the trial court erred in finding that both parties breached the lease agreement, in returning Lueite’s security deposit, and in determining that neither party was the prevailing party. Therefore, we reverse the final judgment. On remand, the trial court is instructed to reconsider its findings in accordance with this opinion.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
DELL, J., and OWEN, WILLIAM C., Jr., Senior Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (17 total)
-
The Green Cos., Inc. v. Kendall Racquetball Inv., Ltd., 658 So. 2d 1119 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)…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 there are separate and distinct claims which would support independent actions, there can only be one prevailing party [under…
-
Anglia Jacs & Co., Inc. v. Dubin, 830 So. 2d 169 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)…a. 2d DCA 2000). Generally, when an action for breach of contract contains alternative theories of liability for the same wrong, rather than separate and distinct claims, only one party can prevail in the same lawsuit. Lucite Ctr., Inc. v. Mercede, 606 So. 2d 492, 493 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992); Reinhart v. Miller, 548 So. 2d 1176, 1177 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989). “[T]he fairest test to determine who is the prevailing party is to allow the trial judge to determine from the record which party has in fact prevailed on the s…
-
Candyce E. Hutchinson v. Hutchinson, 687 So. 2d 912 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)…Fla.1993). We recognize that deference is owed a trial court’s discretion in determining who is the prevailing party. However, in a breach of contract action, one party must prevail, absent compelling circumstances. See Lucite Ctr., Inc. v. Mercede, 606 So. 2d 492 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992); KCIN, Inc. v. Canpro Invs., Ltd., 675 So. 2d 222 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). On remand, the trial court shall reconsider its findings, basing its award on who prevailed on the significant issues in the suit. As to all other issues r…
Previewing 3 of 17 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Moritz v. Hoyt Enters., Inc., 604 So. 2d 807 (Fla. 1992)
- Brown v. State, 546 So. 2d 1047 (Fla. 1989)
- Katz v. VAN DER Noord, 546 So. 2d 1047 (Fla. 1989)
- Reinhart v. Miller, 548 So. 2d 1176 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)