CECIL FIELDER AND STACEY FIELDER, APPELLANTS,
v.
WEINSTEIN DESIGN GROUP, INC., 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 Fielders hired Weinstein Design Group for interior design services and paid $1.36 million but disputed an outstanding invoice of $26,636. Weinstein sued for the unpaid amount while the Fielders counterclaimed for over $400,000 in improper charges. The court reversed the trial court's determination that the Fielders were not prevailing parties on Weinstein's claim, holding that they were entitled to prevailing party attorney's fees.
The Fielders prevailed as a matter of law on Weinstein's claim against them because Weinstein was forced to reduce its demand and ultimately the trial court entered judgment in the Fielders' favor. Mrs. Fielder is entitled to prevailing party attorney's fees for defending against Weinstein's claim. Mr. Fielder cannot recover nor be assessed prevailing party attorney's fees because he was not a party to the contract.
[1] A party who is not a party to a contract cannot recover prevailing party's fees or have such fees assessed against them.
[2] A party can be the prevailing party on one claim while not prevailing on another distinct claim.
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“The Fielders thus prevailed as a matter of law on Weinstein's claim against them.”
The court's conclusion that the Fielders were the prevailing parties on the claim Weinstein brought against them because Weinstein was ultimately unsuccessful in collecting the full amount originally sought.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Fielders contracted with Weinstein Design Group for interior design services on their home and paid $1.36 million with outstanding invoices of $26…
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 Net Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
KLEIN, J.
The Fielders contracted with Weinstein for interior design services on their home and paid Weinstein $1.36 million, with' outstanding invoices of $26,636. In this action Weinstein sought payment for its outstanding invoices, and the Fielders counterclaimed for over $400,000 based on improper charges. We reverse the trial court’s ruling that the Fielders were not the prevailing parties on the claim brought against them.
A net judgment was entered in favor of Mrs. Fielder in the amount of $5,636, but Mr. Fielder was dismissed because he was not a party to the contract. Because Mr. Fielder was not a party to the contract, he cannot recover prevailing party’s fees nor can such fees be assessed against him. Hanna v. Beverly Enterprises-Florida, 738 So. 2d 424 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); Fla. Med. Ctr. v. McCoy, 657 So. 2d 1248 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); Stewart v. Tasnet, Inc., 718 So. 2d 820 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998).
Mrs. Fielder argues that the trial court committed legal error in holding that she was not the prevailing party in Wein-stein’s claim against her, because she prevailed on the significant issues as to that claim. Moritz v. Hoyt Enters., Inc., 604 So. 2d 807 (Fla.1992); Prosperi v.Code, Inc., 626 So. 2d 1360 (Fla.1993).
Weinstein’s claim against the Fielders was for unpaid bills for merchandise. The primary issue litigated in the counterclaim was whether Weinstein had improperly added overhead, profit or supervision charges in various percentages in statements which had been paid by the Fielders. Because these claims were distinct, there can be a prevailing party on each claim. Folta v. Bolton, 493 So. 2d 440 (Fla.1986).
Although there is ample evidence to support the trial court’s conclusion that the Fielders did not prevail on their counterclaim, there is no evidence to support the conclusion that the Fielders did not prevail on the claim Weinstein brought against them. On that claim Weinstein, as we noted earlier, sued for $26,636. During the arbitration it reduced the amount it was seeking to $10,527. The dispute involved furniture or other decorating objects which the Fielders had not ordered and did not want, but which Weinstein refused to take back. The arbitrator ordered Weinstein to take the items back and, when all was said and done, the trial court entered judgment in favor of the Fielders for $5,636. The Fielders thus prevailed as a matter of law on Weinstein’s claim against them.
We therefore reverse and remand for the trial court to award Mrs. Fielder prevailing party attorney’s fees for her defense of Weinstein’s claim against her. Mr. Fielder, as we indicated earlier, can neither be required to pay nor can he recover prevailing party attorney’s fees because he was not a party to the contract.
STEVENSON, J., and BAILEY, JENNIFER D., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
The Bank OF NEW York Mellon Tr. Co., N.A. v. Fitzgerald, 215 So. 3d 116 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)…vision into a reciprocal provision. Id, Section 57.105(7), however, cannot transform a contract’s unilateral fee provision into a reciprocal obligation where, as here, no contract exists between the parties. Fielder v. Weinstein Design Group, Inc., 842 So. 2d 879, 880 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (finding that individual who was not a party to the contract cannot' recover prevailing party fees nor can such fees be assessed against him); Hanna v. Beverly Enterprises-Fla., 738 So. 2d 424, 425 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (affir…
-
Avatar Dev. Corp. v. DePANI Constr., Inc., 883 So. 2d 344 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)…me wrong. 493 So. 2d at 442. The medical malpractice claims in Folta involved different medical providers performing different procedures. Id. at 441. We applied Folta to a single contractual relationship in Fielder v. Weinstein Design Group, Inc., 842 So. 2d 879, 880 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). There, an interior designer sued a client for unpaid merchandise. The client counterclaimed for improper charges of supervision, overhead, and profit on previously paid invoices. Both claims arose out of the single contract…
-
River Bridge Corp. v. Am. Somax Ventures, 76 So. 3d 986 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)…entitled to attorney’s fees); Rosen Bldg. Supplies, Inc. v. Krupa, 927 So. 2d 899, 900 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (holding that claim for unpaid wages was separate and distinct from claim for wrongful termination); Fielder v. Weinstein Design Group, Inc., 842 So. 2d 879, 880 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (holding that interior designer’s claim for unpaid merchandise was separate and distinct from client’s counterclaim for improper charges even though both claims were based on a single contractual relationship); Warshall v. P…
Previewing 3 of 7 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)
- Prosperi v. Code, Inc., 626 So. 2d 1360 (Fla. 1993)
- Folta v. Joseph Bolton, M.D., 493 So. 2d 440 (Fla. 1986)
- Fla. Med. Ctr., Inc. v. McCOY, 657 So. 2d 1248 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)
- Hanna v. Enterprises-Florida, 738 So. 2d 424 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)
- L.D. Stewart and Michael J. Maricle v. Tasnet, Inc., 718 So. 2d 820 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)