JOSEPH HOFFMAN, APPELLANT,
v.
MARTIN BARLLY AND PAN AMERICAN WHOLESALE DISTRIBUTORS, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, 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.
Hoffman appealed a decree denying his equity suit for corporate dissolution and accounting, and awarding attorney's fees and expenses to defendants. The court affirmed the dismissal of Hoffman's suit but reversed the award of attorney's fees to defendants, holding that absent statutory authority or contractual agreement, each party must bear its own counsel fees.
The court held that attorney's fees cannot be charged against a party as a general rule without statutory authority or a contract or agreement specifically authorizing such allowance. The award of attorney's fees and expenses to defendants was reversed, though the dismissal of Hoffman's suit was affirmed.
“Attorney's fees can not be charged, as a general rule, in the absence of statutory authority, unless the defendant is bound for their payment by contract.”
Establishes the fundamental rule that attorney's fees are not recoverable without statute or contract, which is the controlling principle in this case.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHoffman, as plaintiff, filed an equity suit for dissolution of a corporation and accounting against Barlly and Pan American Wholesale Distributors. A …
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 Wrongful Injunction cases and more on FLexlaw
CARROLL, CHAS., Chief Judge.
Appellant, who was the plaintiff in the lower court, has appealed from a final decree rendered in an equity suit for dissolution of a corporation and accounting.
A receiver was appointed and an injunction granted. Later the receiver was discharged and the injunction dissolved.
The defendants answered, and counterclaimed for an accounting and to recover defendants’ attorney fees for wrongful issuance of the order appointing the receiver and granting the injunction.
The final decree denied relief to the plaintiff, dismissed his suit, and charged certain costs against him. On the counterclaim, the decree allowed and taxed defendants’ attorney fees, saying defendants “are awarded the fees of their counsel of record now taxed in the amount of Twenty Five Hundred Dollars, and their expenses herein incurred and now taxed in the amount of Five Hundred Twenty ($520.00) Dollars, and the plaintiff and counterde-fendant, Joseph Hoffman, is directed to pay said monies to the counterclaimants’ counsel of record forthwith; * * *” and the decree then made the attorney’s fees and expenses a lien on the plaintiff’s interest in the corporation.
Having heard argument and examined the record with reference to the assignments of error, we are of the view that they are without merit except as to the taxing of attorney’s fees and charging them against the plaintiff. There was no agreement or statute to support an allowance or taxing of attorneys’ fees. 1
In Brite v. Orange Belt Securities Co., 133 Fla. 266, 182 So. 892, 895, the Supreme Court said:
“Attorney’s fees can not be charged, as a general rule, in the absence of statutory authority, unless the defendant is bound for their payment by contract. As stated in 15 C.J. 114:
“ ‘The general rule requires each party to the litigation to pay his own counsel fees. Attorney’s fees are not allowable in the absence of a statute or in the absence of some agreement or stipulation specially authorizing the allowance thereof, and it has been held that the rule applies equally in Courts of Law and in Courts of Equity.’ ”
See, also, Gregory v. Woodbery, 53 Fla. 566, 43 So. 504; Bass v. Alderman, 82 Fla. 490, 90 So. 378; State ex rel. Royal Ins. Co. v. Barrs, 87 Fla. 168, 99 So. 668; Webb v. Scott, 129 Fla. Ill, 176 So. 442; Dorner v. Red Top Cab & Baggage Co., 160 Fla. 882, 37 So. 2d 160; and Phoenix Indemnity Co. v. Union Finance Co., Fla.1951, 54 So. 2d 188.2
Accordingly, the decree is affirmed except as to paragraphs numbered four and five thereof assessing and taxing defendants’ attorney fees against the plaintiff-appellant, as to which the decree is reversed.
Affirmed in part and reversed in part.
HORTON and PEARSON, JJ., concur. . Section 64.16, Fla.Stat., F.S.A., allowing a court to assess defendant’s damages (which would include attorney’s fees) under an injunction bond in the main suit, upon dissolution, was not applicable here. The injunction was issued July 6, 1956, without notice and without requiring bond. Bond was moved for and ordered August 6. The bond was not filed, and for that reason the injunction was dissolved August 8.
. Assessing attorney’s fees under Section 64.16, id., is not contrary to the rale announced in this opinion, because such an allowance under that statute is based on a contract obligation of a bond.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
Coral Gables First Nat'l Bank v. Constructors OF Fla. Inc., 119 So. 2d 741 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960)…in Surety’s counterclaim against Constructors. We think the award of attorneys’ fees against the Banks was erroneous, first because attorneys’ fees as such cannot be awarded in the absence of statute or contract. See Hoffman v. Barlly, Fla.App.1957, 97 So. 2d 355, and cases cited therein. Secondly, the award would appear to be inconsistent with the chancellor’s finding that the evidence was insufficient to establish that the Banks were solely responsible for all damage suffered by Constructors resulting from…
-
Ada Gannett v. William F. King et ux., 108 So. 2d 299 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959)…recoverable as an item of damages unless there is liability therefor under contract or statute. 9 Fla.Jur., Damages, section 77, pp. 413-414; Brite v. Orange Belt Securities Co., 1938, 133 Fla. 266, 182 So. 892; and Hoffman v. Barlly, Fla.App.1957, 97 So. 2d 355. It is a logical consequence that such fees cannot be added to the amount in controversy so as to fulfill the requisite jurisdictional sum. In 21 C.J.S. Courts § 59, p. 74, it is said: “ * * * in an action for damages a claim for attorney’s fees whi…
-
Hathcock v. Hathcock, 533 So. 2d 802 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)…nt’s reliance upon the above authorities is the fact that Section 60.07 allowing the court in the main suit to determine and award damages upon dissolution of an injunction applies only where an injunction bond has been filed. See Hoffman v. Barlly, 97 So. 2d 355 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1957). Thus, any remedy appellant might have for damages for the erroneous issuance of the subject order must lie elsewhere than in the instant suit. Accordingly, the subject order is reversed and the cause is remanded to the trial co…
Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- The State of Fla. ex rel. Royal Ins. Co. v. Burton Barrs, 87 Fla. 168 (Fla. 1924)
- Webb v. Scott, 129 Fla. 111 (Fla. 1936)
- Adeline M. Dorner v. RED TOP CAB & Baggage Co., 160 Fla. 882 (Fla. 1948)
- Brite v. Orange Belt Sec. Co., 133 Fla. 266 (Fla. 1938)
- Phoenix Indem. Co. v. Union Fin. Co., 54 So.2d 188 (Fla. 1951)
- Gregory v. Woodbery, 53 Fla. 566 (Fla. 1907)
- Oscar Bass (otherwise known as Rull Bass) v. Alderman, 82 Fla. 490 (Fla. 1921)