WILLIAM LANGFORD, APPELLANT,
v.
PARAVANT, INC. AND PARAVANT COMPUTER, ETC., 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.
William Langford appealed a judgment awarding him commissions from his former employer Paravant, Inc., claiming it was insufficient. The appellate court affirmed the liability and damages judgment but reversed the denial of attorney's fees, holding that Langford was entitled to statutory attorney's fees under Florida law even though he recovered less than claimed.
The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment on liability and damages, finding no reversible error in the trial procedures or evidentiary rulings. However, the court reversed the denial of attorney's fees, holding that Langford, as a successful litigant in an unpaid wages action, was entitled to statutory attorney's fees under section 448.08 despite recovering less than the amount claimed.
[1] Unpaid commissions are considered wages for the purposes of statutes allowing attorney's fees and costs to successful litigants in actions for unpaid wages.
[2] A party prevails within the meaning of a statute allowing attorney's fees for unpaid wages when there is an affirmative judgment rendered, even if it is for less than the…
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“Unpaid commissions are considered wages for purposes of section 448.08.”
Establishes that Langford's unpaid commissions fall within the statutory definition of wages eligible for attorney's fees recovery.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLangford was employed by Paravant, Inc. and was owed commissions under his employment agreement. At trial, the court bifurcated the proceedings sua sp…
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 Motion For Attorney'S Fees cases and more on FLexlaw
William Langford appeals the final judgment on liability and damages, which he claims awarded him only a fraction of the total amount of commissions he was owed from his former employer, Paravant, Inc. Langford raises several issues: (1) whether the trial court erred when it sua sponte bifurcated the trial; (2) whether the trial court erred in refusing to allow certain evidence to be considered by the jury; 3) *76whether the instructions and verdict form the trial court gave to the jury were improper; and 4) whether the trial court erred in denying Langford’s motion for judgment as a matter of law. We have thoroughly reviewed the record that has been provided to us, and we are unable to conclude that reversible error occurred as to any of these issues. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment under review.
Langford also appeals the order denying his motion for attorney’s fees. Clearly, Langford is entitled to fees pursuant to section 448.08, Florida Statutes (2008), which allows awards of attorney’s fees and costs to successful litigants in actions for unpaid wages. “Unpaid commissions are considered wages for purposes of section 448.08.” Hingson v. MMI of Fla., Inc., 8 So.3d 398, 401 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009). As the court further explained in Hingson:
The policy behind section 448.08 is to provide “a means to equalize the disparate positions of employees in attempting to collect for the fruits of their labors.” Tampa Bay Publ’ns, Inc. v. Watkins, 549 So.2d 745, 747 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989). The fact that Hingson did not recover all the commissions she sought does not alter her status as prevailing party under section 448.08. Although she recovered less than the amount that she claimed, she established, and the trial court found, that the Employers breached the employment agreement and that she was entitled to damages and her statutorily authorized attorney’s fees as a result of that breach.
Id. Similarly, in Community Design Corp. v. Antonell, 459 So.2d 343, 346 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984), review denied, 469 So.2d 748 (Fla.1985), the court held:
Addressing CDC’s second theory, we hold that a party prevails within the meaning of section 448.08 when there is an affirmative judgment rendered, even if it is for less than the amount claimed and recovery is not had on all counts. Cf. Hub Cap Heaven, Inc. v. Goodman, 431 So.2d 323 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); American Insulation of Fort Walton Beach, Inc. v. Pruitt, 378 So.2d 839 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979); Peter Marich & Associates, Inc. v. Powell, 365 So.2d 754 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978). (These cases reached the same holding in interpreting a similar provision of the Florida Statutes, § 713.29.)
Id. at 346.
We affirm the final judgment on liability and damages. We reverse the order denying Langford’s motion for fees and costs and remand this case to the trial court to determine the amount to award Langford.
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.
GRIFFIN, J., and PARSONS, W.A., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Baker v. Storfer, 51 So. 3d 652 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)…term “unpaid wages” includes unpaid commissions. § 448.08, Fla. Stat. (2009); Gulf Solar, Inc. v. Westfall, 447 So. 2d 363, 367 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984) (holding that commissions are wages within the meaning of section 448.08); Langford v. Paravant, Inc., 48 So. 3d 75, 76 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010) (same). We find the above holdings persuasive in this case. As such, we hold that commissions are “wages,” for purposes of section 77.0305 of the garnishment statutes, and reverse the trial court’s order. Reversed and remand…
Authorities Cited
- Peter Marich & Assocs., Inc. v. Powell, 365 So. 2d 754 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978)
- Cmty. Design Corp. v. Antonell, 459 So. 2d 343 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)
- Tampa BAY Publ'ns, Inc. v. Watkins, 549 So. 2d 745 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)
- Am. Insulation OF Fort Walton Beach, Inc. v. Pruitt, 378 So. 2d 839 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)
- Mini-Hospital, Inc. v. J.P. Realty, Inc., 431 So. 2d 323 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- HUB CAP Heaven, Inc. v. Goodman, 431 So. 2d 323 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- Hingson v. MMI OF Fla., Inc., 8 So. 3d 398 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)