LAURA L. ROSE, APPELLANT,
v.
STEVE ROSE, 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.
In this domestic relations appeal, the Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's refusal to award attorney's fees to the wife in a contempt proceeding. The court held that where a property settlement agreement explicitly provides for reasonable attorney's fees to the prevailing party, the trial judge has no discretion to decline enforcement of that provision.
The trial court erred in refusing to award attorney's fees. Where a contract provides for attorney's fees to the prevailing party in litigation arising out of the contract, the trial judge is without discretion to decline enforcement of that provision. The husband's subsequent petition for modification does not defeat the wife's entitlement to attorney's fees as the prevailing party on the contempt motion.
[1] A trial court errs by failing to award reasonable attorney's fees when a contract explicitly provides for them to the prevailing party in litigation arising from the cont…
[2] A party who successfully brings a motion for contempt under a contract provision entitling the prevailing party to attorney's fees is entitled to those fees.
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“Where the contract provides for attorney's fees to be awarded to the prevailing party in litigation arising out of the contract, the trial judge is without discretion to decline to enforce the provision.”
Establishes the mandatory nature of contractual attorney's fee provisions and eliminates judicial discretion to refuse enforcement.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLaura Rose filed a motion for contempt against her ex-husband Steve Rose for failing to honor his support and medical expense obligations under a prop…
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 Attorney'S Fees Provision cases and more on FLexlaw
SEIDLIN, LARRY, Associate Judge.
We agree with the wife’s assertion that the trial court erred in not awarding her reasonable attorney’s fees.
The property settlement agreement provides that “In the event, however, that there is a controversy over the enforcement or interpretation of the provisions of any terms of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to reasonable attorneys fees as well as court costs and expenses.” A reading of the wife’s motion for contempt, and the trial court’s order clearly shows that the wife prevailed.
Where the contract provides for attorney’s fees to be awarded to the prevailing party in litigation arising out of the contract, the trial judge is without discretion to decline to enforce the provision. Jacobson v. Jacobson, 595 So. 2d 292 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992); Witt v. Witt, 568 So. 2d 539 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990).
The husband’s eleventh hour Petition for Modification of his child support and medical expense obligations does not defeat the wife’s entitlement to attorney’s fees on her motion for his contempt. In this particular case, the husband had an affirmative duty to petition the lower court to modify his support obligations. He cannot be allowed to sit on his laurels, stop honoring his obligations, and force the wife to seek enforcement through contempt and then avoid payment of her fees of which he contractually agreed.
Accordingly, we reverse and remand this case to the trial court to determine, upon hearing, the reasonable attorney’s fees due the wife on her motion for contempt, and for the taking of this appeal as the prevailing party under the terms of the property settlement agreement.
GUNTHER and POLEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Candyce E. Hutchinson v. Hutchinson, 687 So. 2d 912 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)…e defenses. The trial court erred by failing to award attorney’s fees to a prevailing party. Where a contract provides attorney’s fees for a prevailing party, the trial judge is without discretion to decline to enforce the provision. Rose v. Rose, 615 So. 2d 203 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). The test for determining the prevailing party is to determine which party prevailed on significant issues tried before the court. Moritz v. Hoyt Enters., Inc., 604 So. 2d 807, 810 (Fla.1992). See also Prosperi v. Code, Inc., 626…
-
Mott v. Mott, 800 So. 2d 331 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)…(Fla. 4th DCA 2001). Indeed, when the agreement provides for fees to be awarded to the prevailing party, the trial court is without discretion to decline to enforce that provision. Davids v. Davids, 718 So. 2d 1263 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998); Rose v. Rose, 615 So. 2d 203, 204 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993); Jacobson v. Jacobson, 595 So. 2d 292, 294 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992). The trial court applied the fee provision contained in the marital settlement agreement that each party was responsible for his or her own fees and costs of th…
-
Animal Wrappers & Doggie Wrappers, Inc. v. Courtyard Distrib. Ctr., Inc., 73 So. 3d 354 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)…e novo.”) (citations omitted). “Courts have no discretion to decline to enforce this kind of contractual attorney’s fees provision.” Point E. Four Condo. Corp. v. Zevuloni & Assocs., Inc., 50 So. 3d 687, 687 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (citing Rose v. Rose, 615 So. 2d 203, 204 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)). Animal Wrappers argues that it prevailed because it succeeded on the significant issues in litigation and Courtyard obtained no relief on its counterclaim. Courtyard argues that because Animal Wrappers received the return…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Jacobson v. Hal Martin Jacobson, 595 So. 2d 292 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992)
- Witt v. Witt, 568 So. 2d 539 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)