STATE OF FLORIDA, EX REL., ELMER MARSH AND RICHARD STORM, QUI TAM, APPELLANTS,
v.
THEODORE R. DORAN, INDIVIDUALLY, DORAN, WOLFE, ROST & ANSAY, P.A., A LAW FIRM INCORPORATED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEES

Fla. 1st DCA | 2007-06-18
No. 1D06-3323
BARFIELD, WOLF, and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.
958 So. 2d 1082 Florida District Court of Appeal, First District (2007) Positive Treatment
Cited by 7 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

The primary issue in this case is whether the appellees were “prevailing parties” under section 68.086(3), Florida Statutes (2002). We hold that a defendant is entitled to recover attorney’s fees under section 68.086(3), which awards fees to the prevailing party, after the plaintiff takes a voluntary dismissal without prejudice. The refiling of the same suit after the voluntary dismissal does not alter the appellees’ right to recover prevailing party attorney’s fees incurred in defense of the first suit. Caufield v. Cantele, 837 So. 2d 371 (Fla.2002); Alhambra Homeowners Ass’n, Inc. v. Asad, 943 So. 2d 316 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006). We find no error in the trial judge’s denial of the motion for recusal.

AFFIRMED.

BARFIELD, WOLF, and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Tatyana Nudel v. Flagstar Bank, FSB, 60 So. 3d 1163 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)
    …legal issues raised in the dismissed action [were] also the subject of the new litigation, [the defendant] [could] [not] be the prevailing party.” Id. at 347-48. Relying on a voluntary dismissal without prejudice case, State ex rel. Marsh v. Doran, 958 So. 2d 1082 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007), the first district rejected the bank’s argument. Id. at 348. “The refiling of the same suit after the voluntary dismissal does not alter the ap-pellees’ right to recover prevailing party attorney’s fees incurred in defense of th…
  • The Bank OF NEW York v. Williams, 979 So. 2d 347 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)
    …ubject of the new litigation, Williams cannot be the prevailing party [*348] under section ST.IOSÍT).1 We have expressly rejected the Bank’s argument in the context of a plaintiffs voluntary dismissal without prejudice. State ex rel. Marsh v. Doran, 958 So. 2d 1082 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007). There we explained: We hold that a defendant is entitled to recover attorney’s fees under section 68.086(3), which awards fees to the prevailing party, after the plaintiff takes a voluntary dismissal without prejudice. The refi…
  • Yampol v. Schindler Elevator Corp., 186 So. 3d 616 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016)
    …thout prejudice. The general rule of Thomber has properly been applied to confer prevailing party status where the voluntary dismissal was without prejudice, even if the plaintiff later refiles the same suit. See, e.g., State ex rel. Marsh v. Doran, 958 So. 2d 1082 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007); Alhambra Homeowners Ass’n v. Asad, 943 So. 2d 316 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006). There are undoubtedly cases in which the general rule may be inapplicable to a particular set of circumstances, and one might logically argue those circumsta…

Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw