ROBERT BUTLER, PETITIONER,
v.
HENRY YUSEM, ET AL., RESPONDENTS
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 the appellate court erred in affirming the trial court's decision based on justifiable reliance when the trial court based its decision on due diligence, and that prejudgment interest should have been awarded on certain attorney fees.
[1] An appellate court may affirm a trial court's decision under the tipsy coachman doctrine if the trial court reached the correct result, even if for the wrong reason, prov…
[2] A party's failure to plead the affirmative defense of lack of due diligence may preclude its use to bar claims.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceButler appealed a decision that barred his claims due to failure to show justifiable reliance and denied prejudgment interest on attorney fees. The tr…
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 Limited Partnership cases and more on FLexlaw
Butler seeks review of Yusem v. Butler, 966 So.2d 405 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007),1 arguing that the Fourth District Court of Appeal erred in holding that (1) his claims for fraudulent inducement, negligent misrepresentation, breach of contract, and breach of fiduciary duty were barred by a failure to show justifiable reliance; and (2) he was not entitled to prejudgment interest on attorneys’ fees. We agree.
The trial court found that Butler could not recover on his claims of fraud, negligence, breach of contract, and breach of fiduciary duty due to his failure to show due diligence. Yusem, 966 So.2d at 412. On appeal, the Fourth District agreed with Butler by noting that a lack of due diligence could not bar his recovery because the defendants failed to plead this affirmative defense. Id. But the Fourth District then concluded that the trial court “misapplied the term ‘due diligence’ to express its conclusion that Butler did not justifiably rely on representations made by the Appellants” and, on that basis, affirmed that Butler could not recover. Id.
Although a lack of due diligence could not bar Butler’s claims, the Fourth District erred by recharacterizing the trial court’s ruling as a lack of justifiable reliance.2 We remand for the Fourth District to address whether it may apply justifiable reliance under the tipsy coachman doctrine to affirm the trial court.3 On remand, if the Fourth District concludes that it may rely on the tipsy coachman doctrine, the Fourth District must address Butler’s claims individually to determine whether justifiable reliance applies to each claim. In its decision under review, the Fourth District lumped Butler’s claims for fraudulent inducement, negligent misrepresentation, breach of contract, and breach of fiduciary duty together and then applied the justifiable reliance requirement to all his claims.
In addition, the Fourth District should have awarded Butler interest on some of his fees. See generally Argonaut Ins. Co. v. May Plumbing Co., 474 So.2d 212, 214 (Fla.1985). Prejudgment interest begins to accrue on “the date the entitlement to attorney fees is fixed through agreement, arbitration award, or court determination.” Quality Eng’d Installation, Inc. v. Higley S. Inc., 670 So.2d 929, 930-31 (Fla.1996). Yet the result of the Fourth District’s ruling is that even fees incurred as damages are not subject to prejudgment interest. See Yusem, 966 So.2d at 414. While some of Butler’s fees do not warrant prejudgment interest because his entitlement does not arise until he becomes a prevailing party,4 section 8 *1187of the Guarantee and Indemnification Agreement between Butler and Yusem allows for recovery of fees incurred on behalf of the partnership and no such “prevailing party” provision applies.5 Thus, the Fourth District erred by not awarding prejudgment interest on the fees Butler incurred in the FDIC litigation,6 because those fees were fixed when paid and Butler’s recovery was not contingent on his status as a prevailing party.
Accordingly, we quash the Fourth District’s decision in Yusem to the extent it is inconsistent with this opinion and remand for further proceedings.
It is so ordered.
QUINCE, C.J., and WELLS, PARIENTE, LEWIS, CANADY, POLSTON, and LABARGA, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Butler v. Yusem, 44 So. 3d 102 (Fla. 2010)…Butler seeks review of the decision of the Fourth District Court of Appeal in Yusem v. Butler (Butler III), 10 So. 3d 1159 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009), on the ground that it expressly and directly conflicts with our decision in Butler v. Yusem (Butler II), 3 So. 3d 1185 (Fla.2009), and our decision in Robertson v. State, 829 So. 2d 901 (Fla.2002), regarding the proper application of the tipsy coachman doctrine. We also conclude that the decision of the Fourth District, which holds that failure to establish justifia…1 / 2
-
Capitol Env't Servs., Inc. v. Earth Tech, Inc., 25 So. 3d 593 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)…ributable to the attorney’s fees and costs incurred in the Carey lawsuit and the declaratory judgment action. Where, as here, attorney’s fees and costs are awarded as an element of damages, prejudgment interest is to be awarded. See Butler v. Yusem, 3 So. 3d 1185, 1186-87 (Fla.2009) (distinguishing between fees awarded pursuant to a prevailing party provision and fees awarded as an element of damages, and explaining that prejudgment interest should be awarded on the latter type of fees because the amount and…
-
The Bank OF NEW York Mellon v. Est. of James D. Peterson, 208 So. 3d 1218 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017)…and BADALAMENTI, JJ., Concur. . While the Estate did not argue its entitlement to relief under rule 1.540 in either its written motion or at the hearing, it relies on this rule in this appeal under the tipsy coachman doctrine. See Butler v. Yusem, 3 So. 3d 1185, 1186 n.3 (Fla. 2009) ("The 'tipsy coachman’ doctrine allows an appellate court to affirm a trial court that 'reaches the right result, but for the wrong reasons’ so long as 'there is any basis which would support the judgment in the record.’ " (quo…
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
- Dade Cnty. Sch. Bd. v. Radio Station Wqba, 731 So. 2d 638 (Fla. 1999)
- Argonaut Ins. Co. v. MAY Plumbing Co., 474 So. 2d 212 (Fla. 1985)
- Swett v. State, 829 So. 2d 901 (Fla. 2002)
- Robertson v. State, 829 So. 2d 901 (Fla. 2002)
- Quality Engineered Installation, Inc. v. Higley S., Inc., 670 So. 2d 929 (Fla. 1996)
- Yusem v. Butler, 966 So. 2d 405 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)