HERBERT L. BROOKS, PETITIONER,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT

Citator

Cited By

• Surgical P'rs, LLC v. Michael Choi, D.O., 100 So. 3d 1267 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)
  …ailing party fee provision, ‘there is a difference between contracts that never came into existence and contracts that exist but are later found to be unenforceable.’ ” Tarr v. Honea, 959 So. 2d 780, 781 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (quoting Fabing v. Eaton, 941 So. 2d 415, 418 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)). No binding contract is formed when a condition precedent to its formation never occurs. Mitchell v. DiMare, 936 So. 2d 1178, 1180 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006). Here, the agreement plainly set out its term of operation in article tw…
• In re Guardianship OF Leon Bloom v. Bloom, 227 So. 3d 165 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017)
  …finality for appealable orders in probate and guardianship proceedings. Applying that construction of rule 9.170, we conclude that the order denying attorney’s fees here ended the judicial labor needed to adjudicate that issue. See Fabing v. Eaton, 941 So. 2d 415, 417 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (“Generally, an order denying a motion for attorney’s fees is a final, ap-pealable order when that order ends the judicial labor as to that portion of the case.”). And it is beyond dispute that Marshall was an interested part…
• S.A. Tarr v. Honea, 959 So. 2d 780 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)
  …enforceable by some subsequent act. See Katz v. Van Der Noord, 546 So. 2d 1047, 1049 (Fla.1989). This situation differs from a contract that never came into existence, which cannot form the basis for an award of attorney’s fees. See Fabing v. Eaton, 941 So. 2d 415, 418 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006). In Katz, the supreme court held that for the purpose of determining whether an award of attorney’s fees is proper under a contract’s prevailing party fee provision, “there is a difference between contracts that never came in…