VERA ALENE REMINGTON, APPELLANT,
v.
MARK E. REMINGTON, 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.
The court held that a trial court has discretion to refuse to enforce a contractual provision for attorney's fees when equity requires, particularly when a party has been overly litigious or misused the judicial system.
[1] A trial court has discretion to refuse to enforce contractual provisions for attorney's fees when equity requires.
[2] A trial court may deny attorney's fees despite a contractual provision for them when a party has been overly litigious or has misused the judicial system.
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 intelligenceAppellant sought attorney's fees based on a settlement agreement provision after a legal proceeding. The trial court denied the fees, finding Appellan…
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 Equitable Considerations In Fee Awards cases and more on FLexlaw
STONE, Chief Judge.
We affirm, in Case No. 97-2297, an order enforcing final judgment and denying Appellant’s motion for contempt, with respect to which the court rejected Appellant’s claim to attorney’s-fees. The trial court denied fees because Appellant was “overly litigious,” notwithstanding a provision in the parties’ prior settlement agreement providing that the husband pay fees incurred in any legal proceedings brought with reference to the duties and rights established by the agreement. This court has recognized that a trial court has discretion to refuse to enforce agreement provisions for attorney’s fees when equity requires. Cf. Steinfeld v. Steinfeld, 565 So. 2d 366 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990), receded from on other grounds, Cibula v. Cibula, 578 So. 2d 519 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991). See also Planes v. Planes, 477 So. 2d 42 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). Here, such a conclusion is supported by the record.
In Steinfeld, we upheld the award of attorney’s fees to the former wife notwithstanding her waiver of fees in the parties’ settlement agreement. There, we stated:
In our view, the terms of the marital settlement agreement did not contemplate a waiver of attorney’s fees for the defense of baseless and nonmeritorious proceedings. We hold, under the facts of this case, that the trial court properly awarded appellee attorney’s fees based on equitable considerations.
Id. at 367. Certainly a trial court has comparable discretion to disregard a fee provision where a party’s unreasonable conduct and misuse of the judicial system would result in an unjust award.
We have considered Rose v. Rose, 615 So. 2d 203 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993), but deem it inapposite. Our recognition in Rose, that prevailing party fee provisions are enforceable notwithstanding equitable considerations, does not furnish carte blanche entitlement to a fee award to parties abusing the court system by bringing baseless, unreasonable, malicious, or unnecessary actions.
Appellant’s companion appeal in Case No. 97-2296 is dismissed as an unauthorized appeal from a non-final order. DELL and GUNTHER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hugo SAN Martin & Mark Nelson v. Daimlerchrysler Corp., 983 So. 2d 620 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)…itorious cases, a proper fee can be awarded. See, e.g., Gibbs v. Hyundai Motor Am., No. Civ. A. 96-6345,1997 WL 325788 (E.D.Pa. June 4, 1997); Mike v. Chrysler Corp., No. 94-CV-5002, 1995 WL 322500 (E.D.Pa. May 23, 1995); cf. Remington v. Remington, 711 So. 2d 212, 212 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (confirming the authority of the courts of this state applying state law principles to refuse to enforce agreement provisions for [*626] attorneys fees when equity requires). We reverse the orders below and remand for a dete…
Authorities Cited
- Planes v. Marianthi Planes, 477 So. 2d 42 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)
- Cibula v. Cibula, 578 So. 2d 519 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)
- Rose v. Rose, 615 So. 2d 203 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)
- Steinfeld v. Steinfeld, 565 So. 2d 366 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)