POINT EAST FOUR CONDOMINIUM CORPORATION, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
ZEVULONI & ASSOCIATES, INC., 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.
Point East Four Condominium Corporation appealed the trial court's denial of attorney's fees after prevailing against a public insurance adjuster's meritless lawsuit for adjustment fees. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the condominium association was the prevailing party under the contract's attorney's fee provision and was entitled to recover reasonable attorney's fees.
The condominium association was the undeniable prevailing party in the action and was entitled to recover reasonable attorney's fees under the contract. The trial judge had no discretion to decline to enforce the contractual attorney's fee provision and was required to grant the motion for fees and fix the amount of reasonable fees.
[1] A contract provision entitling the prevailing party to reasonable attorneys' fees in any action arising from the contract must be enforced by the trial court.
[2] A party who successfully defends against a meritless claim for fees under a contract is the prevailing party for purposes of recovering attorneys' 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“Courts have no discretion to decline to enforce this kind of contractual attorneys fees provision.”
Establishes that the trial court was bound to enforce the contract's prevailing party attorney's fee clause.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePoint East Four Condominium Corporation hired Zevuloni & Associates as a public insurance adjuster to handle a casualty insurance policy claim under 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 Contract Interpretation cases and more on FLexlaw
We reverse the trial court’s denial of prevailing party attorneys fees under the contract between the parties. The contract provided that “the prevailing party in any action shall be entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees.”
The Condominium Association hired Ze-vuloni & Associates as a public insurance adjuster to handle its claim for benefits under a casualty insurance policy. The contract for adjustment provided for a fee of 10% of the proceeds recovered by the Association. There has never been any recovery of insurance benefits by the Asso-*688eiation. Nevertheless the public adjuster sued the Association for its fee. Its suit was dismissed for failure to state a cause of action for breach of the fee agreement, without prejudice to refile when a fee became due. While the public adjuster’s motion for rehearing of that decision was still pending, the Association moved for attorneys fees under the contract. The trial court denied the motion for fees finding neither party to be the prevailing party.
The adjuster’s suit for fees without any recovery by the insured Association was meritless and was properly dismissed. The Association was undeniably the prevailing party in that action.
We review the interpretation of contractual provisions de novo as a pure matter of law. Stevens v. Zakrzewski, 826 So.2d 520, 521 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). Courts have no discretion to decline to enforce this kind of contractual attorneys fees provision. Rose v. Rose, 615 So.2d 203, 204 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993) (where contract provides for attorneys fees to prevailing party in litigation arising out of contract trial judge has no discretion to decline to enforce the contractual provision). When one party loses in an action for breach of contract, the adverse party is the prevailing party. Scutti v. Daniel E. Adache & Assoc. Arch. P.A., 515 So.2d 1023, 1024 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987). The public adjuster’s suit for a fee under the contract was manifestly “any action” as that term was used in the attorneys fee provision of the contract. The trial judge had no choice but to grant the motion for fees and proceed to fix the amount of a reasonable fee.
Reversed.
WARNER and POLEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Haas Automation, Inc. v. FOX, 243 So. 3d 1017 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018)…th DCA 2012). Where the award of contractual attorney's fees hinges on the interpretation of a contractual provision, however, we review that provision as a pure matter of law, de novo . Id;see Point E. Four Condo. Corp. v. Zevuloni & Assocs., Inc., 50 So. 3d 687, 687 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010). "An appellate court applies the de novo standard of review in determining whether an offer of settlement comports with rule 1.442 and section 768.79 because a 'proposal for settlement is in the nature of a contract.' " Mia…
-
Animal Wrappers & Doggie Wrappers, Inc. v. Courtyard Distrib. Ctr., Inc., 73 So. 3d 354 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)…ther than of fact. For that reason, such cases are reviewed de novo.”) (citations omitted). “Courts have no discretion to decline to enforce this kind of contractual attorney’s fees provision.” Point E. Four Condo. Corp. v. Zevuloni & Assocs., Inc., 50 So. 3d 687, 687 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (citing Rose v. Rose, 615 So. 2d 203, 204 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)). Animal Wrappers argues that it prevailed because it succeeded on the significant issues in litigation and Courtyard obtained no relief on its counterclaim. Cou…
-
Leon F. Cohn, M.D., P.A. v. Visual Health & Surgical Ctr., Inc., 125 So. 3d 860 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)…ed upon in prosecuting and defending their causes of action for breach of contract. “When one party loses in an action for breach of contract, the adverse party is the prevailing party.” Point E. Four Condo. Corp., Inc. v. Zevuloni & Assocs., Inc., 50 So. 3d 687, 688 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (citing Scutti v. Daniel E. Adache & Assoc. Arch. P.A., 515 So. 2d 1023, 1024 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)). Notwithstanding Visual Health’s counterclaim in quasi-contract, the issue in this case was which party bore the blame for th…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- F.V. Scutti v. Daniel E. Adache & Assocs. Architects, P.A., 515 So. 2d 1023 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)
- Stevens v. Zakrzewski, 826 So. 2d 520 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)
- Rose v. Rose, 615 So. 2d 203 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)