WILLIAM F. MURPHY, APPELLANT,
v.
WISU PROPERTIES LIMITED, ET AL., APPELLEES
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 an award of attorney's fees under section 57.105 cannot stand when the underlying claim that would support the fee award has been reversed.
Appellant appealed an award of attorney's fees granted to appellees after the dismissal of appellant's amended counterclaim and third-party claim. The…
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.
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, William Murphy, appeals an award of attorney’s fees pursuant to section 57.105, Fla. Stat. (1995), entered in favor of appellees, WISU Properties, Ltd., and William Wood after the lower court’s dismissal of Murphy’s amended counterclaim and third party claim against these appellees. We reverse.
In our recent decision of Murphy v. WISU Properties, Ltd., Nos. 3D03-2407, 3D03-1002, 3D03-1831, 895 So. 2d 1088, 2004 WL 2452485 (Fla. 3d DCA Nov.3, 2004), we reversed the trial court’s dismissal of the amended counterclaim. We further found the order granting the motion to dismiss the third-party claim to be a non-appealable non-final order and dismissed that portion of the appeal without addressing the merits. Given our earlier holdings, the award of 57.105 attorney’s fees under section 57.105 cannot stand at this juncture.1
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
. We hasten to add that our reversal, however, is without prejudice for the appellees to re-raise the issue at the appropriate time in the proceedings below. We express no opinion as to the merits of such an issue at this time.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
AIR Turbine Tech., Inc. v. Quarles & Brady, LLC, Quarles & Brady, LLP, 165 So. 3d 816 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)…. Similarly, “ ‘contractual provisions concerning attorney’s fees must also be strictly construed.’ ” Miller v. Miller, 107 So. 3d 430, 432 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (quoting Wendel v. Wendel, 852 So. 2d 277, 282 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)); Williams v. Williams, 892 So. 2d 1154, 1155 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005); Venetian Cove Club, Inc. v. Venetian Bay Developers, Inc., 411 So. 2d 1323, 1324 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982). Strict construction of the “legal costs and expenses” provision in the Private Brand Agreement precludes any award of atto…
-
Planned Parenthood OF Greater Orlando v. MMB Props., 171 So. 3d 125 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015)…, together with interest thereon at the highest rate allowed by law from date of disbursement to date to date of recovery ... (Emphasis added). “Contractual provisions concerning attorney’s fees are to be strictly construed.” Williams v. Williams, 892 So. 2d 1154, 1155 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) (citations omitted). The above provision does not authorize attorneys’ fees in this case. Although the first part of the provision permits enforcement by injunction, the attorneys’ fee provision is more narrowly worded. It a…
-
Garcia v. Garcia, 900 So. 2d 606 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)…scretion to decline to enforce contractual provisions for an award of prevailing party attorney’s fees anymore than any other valid contractual provision.” Jacobson v. Jacobson, 595 So. 2d 292, 294 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992); see also Williams v. Williams, 892 So. 2d 1154 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)(observing that “[c]ontractual provisions concerning attorney’s fees are to be strictly construed”). Ms. Garcia’s motion for enforcement claimed' entitlement to fees under the prevailing party provision of the settlement agreement.…
Authorities Cited
- Murphy v. Wisu Props., Ltd., 895 So. 2d 1088 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004)