DOUGLAS FERNANDEZ, APPELLANT,
v.
ANGIE CRESPO, F/K/A ANGIE FERNANDEZ, 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.
Trial court's denial of attorney's fees to the prevailing party in a marital settlement agreement dispute was reversed because the opposing party failed to object to the clearly asserted claim for fees, triggering an exception to the Stockman pleading requirement.
When an opposing party raises no objection to a clearly asserted claim for attorney's fees, the Stockman pleading requirement does not bar recovery by the prevailing party under a marital settlement agreement.
[1] When an opposing party does not object to a clearly asserted claim for attorney's fees, the Stockman pleading requirement exception applies and the prevailing party may r…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFernandez sought attorney's fees as the prevailing party under a marital settlement agreement with his former spouse Crespo. The trial court denied th…
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 Recoverable Costs cases and more on FLexlaw
The trial judge denied the appellant the attorney’s fees to which he was entitled as the prevailing party under the governing marital settlement agreement solely on the ground that his claim had not been properly pled as required by Stockman v. Downs, 573 So.2d 835 (Fla.1991). That order is reversed because the record establishes the applicability of the exception to the Stockman doctrine which applies when the opposing party raises no objection to a clearly asserted claim to fees. See Stockman, 573 So.2d at 838; Sandoval v. Banco de Comercio, S.A., 585 So.2d 934 (Fla.1991); Save on Cleaners of Pembroke II v. Verde Pines City Ctr. Plaza, LLC, 14 So.3d 295 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009); Storob v. Sphere Drake Ins., 730 So.2d 375 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999); Dep’t of Health & Rehab. Servs. v. Coyle, 624 So.2d 400 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993); Brown v. Gardens by the Sea S. Condo. Ass’n, 424 So.2d 181 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Mainlands of Tamarac by the Gulf Unit No. 4 Ass’n v. Morris, 388 So.2d 226 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980).
The order denying the appellant recoverable costs is unsupported by the law and is also reversed. See First Protective Ins. Co. v. Featherston, 978 So.2d 881 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008); Arellano v. Bisson, 761 So.2d 365 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000); Oriental Imports, Inc. v. Alilin, 559 So.2d 442 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990). Accordingly, the orders under review are reversed for the imposition of attorney’s fees and costs in favor of the appellant.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Robert Jeffrey Chaskes, D.O. v. Gutierrez, 116 So. 3d 479 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013)…. THE COURT: One minute, [counsel]. A. That I cannot tell that it’s going to cure them in and of itself, but that is the best chance to heal the wound. This was insufficient.26 See Mount Sinai Med. Ctr. of Greater Miami, Inc. v. Gon [*488] zalez, 98 So. 3d 1198, 1202 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012) (confirming that “[a] mere possibility of ... causation is not enough; and when the matter remains one of pure speculation or conjecture, or the probabilities are at best evenly balanced, it becomes the duty of the court to…
-
Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London v. Roniel Candelaria and Amelia Padura, 339 So. 3d 463 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022)
-
Madelyn Navarro v. Osdany A. Veloz (Fla. 3d DCA 2019)…ty of the well-entrenched “exception to the Stockman doctrine which applies when the opposing party raises no objection to a clearly asserted claim to fees,” we reverse for the imposition of attorney’s fees in favor of Navarro.1 Fernandez v. Crespo, 98 So. 3d 1198 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012) (citations omitted); see also Caufield v. Cantele, 837 So. 2d 371, 377 (Fla. 2002) (“[T]he fundamental concern of the pleading requirement [for an attorney’s fees claim] is notice.”); Stockman, 573 So. 2d at 837 (“[P]leading requi…
Authorities Cited (11 total)
- Stockman v. Downs, 573 So. 2d 835 (Fla. 1991)
- Brown v. Gardens BY THE SEA S. Condo. Ass'n, 424 So. 2d 181 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)
- Oriental Imports, Inc. v. Rosario Alilin and E. Roger Alilin, M.D., 559 So. 2d 442 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)
- Mainlands OF Tamarac BY the Gulf Unit NO. Four Ass'n, Inc. v. Morris, 388 So. 2d 226 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980)
- Save ON Cleaners OF Pembroke II Inc. v. Verde Pines City Ctr. Plaza LLC, 14 So. 3d 295 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)
- Arellano v. Lisette Arellano Bisson and Randolph J. Bisson, 761 So. 2d 365 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)
- Dep't OF Health & Rehabilitative Servs. v. Coyle, 624 So. 2d 400 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)
- Benjamin v. State, 978 So. 2d 881 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)
- Gene and Naomi Storob and George Douge v. Sphere Drake Ins., 730 So. 2d 375 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)
- Sandoval v. Banco de Comercio, S.A., 585 So. 2d 934 (Fla. 1991)