TAHEREH KHODAM, APPELLANT,
v.
ESCONDIDO HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION, 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.
This case concerns who is considered the prevailing party for attorney's fees and costs when a jury finds a breach of contract but awards no damages. The appellate court held that the party who successfully proves a breach, even without damages, is the prevailing party.
Yes, the party who prevails on the significant issues in the litigation, which includes proving a breach of contract, is the prevailing party for attorney's fees and costs, even if no damages are awarded.
[1] In a breach of contract action, one party must prevail.
[2] A party who prevails on the significant issues in litigation is the prevailing party for attorney's fees.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“The issue presented in these consolidated appeals and cross-appeal is whether either party prevailed for purposes of an award of attorney’s fees when a jury determined that appellee breached a contract but awarded appellant no damages.”
This quote frames the central legal question of the case.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA jury found that the Escondido Homeowner's Association breached its contract with Tahereh Khodam but awarded Khodam zero damages. The trial court det…
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 Breach Of Contract Action cases and more on FLexlaw
The issue presented in these consolidated appeals and cross-appeal is whether either party prevailed for purposes of an award of attorney’s fees when a jury determined that appellee breached a contract but awarded appellant no damages. We find that the trial court erred in determining that neither party prevailed for purposes of awarding attorney’s fees and in determining that appellee prevailed for purposes of awarding costs. We find that appellant was the prevailing party for purposes of both attorney’s fees and costs and reverse.
The party who prevails “on the significant issues in the litigation is the ... prevailing party for attorney’s fees.” Moritz v. Hoyt Enters., Inc., 604 So.2d 807, 810 (Fla.1992). Absent compelling circumstances, “we have maintained that ‘[i]n a breach of contract action, one party must prevail.’ ” Animal Wrappers & Doggie Wrappers, Inc. v. Courtyard Distrib. Ctr., Inc., 73 So.3d 354, 356 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (citation omitted). In the present case, only appellant’s breach of contract claim was submitted to the jury. The jury found that appellee breached its declaration of covenants with appellant, though it awarded appellant “$0.” Despite the absence of damages, the finding that appellee breached the contract made appellant the prevailing party on the litigation’s significant issues. Green Cos., Inc. v. Kendall Racquetball Inv., Ltd., 658 So.2d 1119, 1121 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995). Court costs under section 57.041, Florida Statutes, are also “governed by the ‘prevailing party’ standard.” Wyatt v. Milner Document Prods., Inc., 932 So.2d 487, 490 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006), abrogated on other grounds by Westgate Miami Beach, LTD. v. Newport Operating Corp., 55 So.3d 567 (Fla.2010). Appellant is therefore the prevailing party for purposes of an award of costs as well. See Sunshine Bottling Co. v. Tropicana Prods., Inc., 757 So.2d 1231, 1233 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000). As a result, we reverse and remand for the trial court to determine appellant’s reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.
Reversed and remanded.
POLEN, HAZOURI and LEVINE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Skylink Jets, Inc. v. Klukan, 308 So. 3d 1048 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020)
-
Gonzalez v. Coconut Key Homeowners Assoc., Inc., 246 So. 3d 428 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018)
-
Hardeman Landscape Nursery, Inc. v. Watkins, 290 So. 3d 574 (Fla. 2d DCA 2020)…ng suit." Id. (quoting Trytek v. Gale Indus., Inc., 3 So. 3d 1194, 1200 (Fla. 2009)). "Absent compelling circumstances, 'we have maintained that "[i]n a breach of contract action, one party must prevail." ' " Khodam v. Escondido Homeowner's Ass'n, 87 So. 3d 65, 66 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (alteration in original) (quoting Animal Wrappers & Doggie Wrappers, Inc. v. Courtyard Distrib. Ctr., Inc., 73 So. 3d 354, 356 - 3 - (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)). One example of such compelling circumstances is where a contract fai…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Moritz v. Hoyt Enters., Inc., 604 So. 2d 807 (Fla. 1992)
- The Green Cos., Inc. v. Kendall Racquetball Inv., Ltd., 658 So. 2d 1119 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)
- Westgate Miami Beach, Ltd. v. Newport Operating Corp., 55 So. 3d 567 (Fla. 2010)
- Wyatt v. Milner Document Prods., Inc., 932 So. 2d 487 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)
- Sunshine Bottling Co. v. Tropicana Prods., Inc., 757 So. 2d 1231 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)
- Animal Wrappers & Doggie Wrappers, Inc. v. Courtyard Distrib. Ctr., Inc., 73 So. 3d 354 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)