UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLANT,
v.
CHARLES MORRISON, ET AL., APPELLEE
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 United States appeals an award of attorneys' fees to the Morrisons in a foreclosure action. The court holds that because the trial court's judgment for the Morrisons was previously reversed and remanded by this court, there can be no prevailing party for purposes of awarding attorneys' fees, and thus the fee award must be reversed.
Once a final judgment is reversed and remanded by an appellate court, there can be no prevailing party for purposes of awarding prevailing party attorneys' fees. Consequently, an award of attorneys' fees predicated on a reversed or vacated final judgment must also be reversed. The Morrisons did not prevail on Count II merely because a bankruptcy discharge barred the government's collection action.
[1] An award of attorney's fees predicated on a reversed or vacated final judgment must also be reversed.
[2] Once a final judgment is reversed and remanded by an appellate court, there can be no prevailing party for purposes of an award of prevailing party attorney's fees.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Once a final judgment is reversed and remanded by an appellate court, there can be no prevailing party for purposes of an award of prevailing party attorney's fees. Consequently, an award of attorney's fees and costs predicated on a reversed or vacated final judgment also must be reversed.”
Establishes the controlling legal principle that reversed judgments cannot serve as the basis for prevailing party fee awards
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Morrisons were initially the prevailing party in a foreclosure action brought by the United States on two promissory notes secured by a mortgage. …
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 Prevailing Party Attorney'S Fees cases and more on FLexlaw
The United States appeals an award of attorneys’ fees to Charles and Shirley Morrison. The Morrisons were the prevailing party in a foreclosure action until this court reversed and remanded that case with directions to enter judgment for the United States and to dismiss the Mor-risons’ counterclaim with prejudice. United States v. Morrison, 28 So.3d 94 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010). “Once a final judgment is reversed and remanded by an appellate court, there can be no prevailing party for purposes of an award of prevailing party attorney’s fees. Consequently, an award of attorney’s fees and costs predicated on a reversed or vacated final judgment also must be reversed.” Marty v. Bainter, 727 So.2d 1124, 1125 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999). Accord, Dooley & Mack Constr., Inc. v. Buildtec Constr. Group, Inc., 983 So.2d 1243 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008); Viets v. Am. Recruiters Enters., Inc., 922 So.2d 1090 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006).
We reject the Morrisons’ argument that they prevailed on Count II in which the United States sought damages on two promissory notes that were secured by the mortgage. After the government filed the complaint, the Morrisons declared bankruptcy and the bankruptcy court granted a discharge, which enjoined creditors from attempting to collect debts of the Morrisons. The discharge did not bar the foreclosure proceeding. The trial court directed a verdict on Count II because the discharge barred continued prosecution of the cause of action. The discharge in bankruptcy court did not transform the debtors into the “successful party” in pending litigation in state court to collect on the debt.
REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings.
BENTON, PADOVANO, and CLARK, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Terrie G. Viets v. Am. Recruiters Enters., Inc., 922 So. 2d 1090 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)
- Grawbadger v. State, 727 So. 2d 1124 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)
- Terry v. State, 727 So. 2d 1124 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)
- United States v. Morrison, 28 So. 3d 94 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)
- Dooley & Mack Constructors, Inc. v. Buildtec Constr. Grp., Inc., 983 So. 2d 1243 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)