TESLA ELECTRIC, ARMATURE AND MACHINE, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE,
v.
JLM ADVANCED TECHNICAL SERVICES, INC., A FOREIGN CORPORATION; MARK A. HURLBURT, AN INDIVIDUAL; AND RAYMOND H. MOSELEY, AN INDIVIDUAL, APPELLEES/CROSS-APPELLANTS; JLM ADVANCED TECHNICAL SERVICES, INC., A FOREIGN CORPORATION, APPELLANT, V. TESLA ELECTRIC, ARMATURE AND MACHINE, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, 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.
Tesla Electric appeals a summary judgment for JLM on a breach-of-contract claim involving an unenforceable restrictive covenant. The court affirms the summary judgment but reverses the trial court's denial of attorney's fees and costs, remanding for further proceedings to determine whether fees and costs should be awarded to the prevailing party JLM.
The court affirmed the summary judgment for JLM on the breach-of-contract claim. The court found no merit in JLM's claim for attorney's fees under section 57.105(7). However, the court reversed the denial of attorney's fees under section 542.335(l)(k) and reversed the total denial of costs under section 57.041, remanding both issues for the trial court to reconsider with appropriate findings and an evidentiary hearing.
[1] A prevailing party in an action at law is entitled to the taxing of costs in their favor.
[2] A trial court's denial of attorney's fees under a statute granting discretion to award such fees must be supported by specific findings apparent from the record to allow…
Previewing 2 of 5 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“JLM prevailed on Tesla's breach-of-contract claim due to the unenforceability of the restrictive covenant in the parties' contract. Therefore, section 542.335(l)(k) grants the trial court discretion to award JLM its reasonable attorney's fees.”
Establishes that the prevailing party is entitled to discretionary attorney's fees under the applicable statute.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceTesla and JLM had a contract containing a restrictive covenant. Tesla brought a breach-of-contract claim seeking enforcement of that covenant. The tri…
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 Costs cases and more on FLexlaw
Tesla Electric, Armature and Machine, Inc., (“Tesla”) appeals a final summary judgment entered for JLM Advanced Technical Services, Inc., (“JLM”) on a breach-of-contract claim seeking the enforcement of a restrictive covenant, and JLM cross appeals two orders denying its motions for attorney’s fees and costs. We affirm the final summary judgment without discussion. As to the cross appeal, we find no merit in JLM’s claim for attorney’s fees under section 57.105(7), Florida Statutes (2012). However, we reverse and remand for further proceedings on JLM’s claim for attorney’s fees pursuant to section 542.335(l)(k), Florida Statutes (2012), and for costs under section 57.041, Florida Statutes (2012).
JLM prevailed on Tesla’s breach-of-contract claim due to the unenforceability of the restrictive covenant in the parties’ contract. Therefore, section 542.335(l)(k) grants the trial court discretion to award JLM its reasonable attorney’s fees. The trial court denied JLM’s request for attorney’s fees under this provision, finding that the “equities of the case” do not support such an award. Because the basis for this finding is not apparent from the record, we are unable to determine whether the trial court properly exercised its discretion to deny fees under this statute. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for the trial court to revisit its decision and make specific findings to support either an award or denial of attorney’s fees under this provision. See In re Guardianship of Sitter, 779 So.2d 346, 348 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (recognizing that an appellate court may require findings even in the absence of a statutory directive for such findings when necessary to allow for intelligent review).
Unlike section 542.335(l)(k), section 57.041 is mandatory. Under this statute, “the prevailing party in an action at law is absolutely entitled to the taxing of costs in his favor.” Reinke v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 773 So.2d 592, 592 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000). Here, the trial court denied all of JLM’s requested costs. While some of the costs JLM requested were clearly inappropriate, a total denial of costs should not have occurred without an evidentiary hearing. See Winter Park Imports, Inc. v. JM Family Enterps., Inc., 77 So.3d 227, 230 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011) (requiring an evidentiary hearing when the opposing party objects to the requested costs). We reverse and remand for the trial court to afford JLM the opportunity to show at an evidentiary hearing that the requested costs were reasonably necessary to JLM’s defense. After providing this opportunity and considering Tesla’s objections, the court must enter an appropriate cost award in JLM’s favor. See Weitzer Oak Park Estate, Ltd. v. Petto, 573 So.2d 990, 991 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991).
*867AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; and REMANDED with directions.
THOMAS, RAY, and MAKAR, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Harrell v. Badger, 171 So. 3d 764 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015)…hat the equities of the instant case do not favor any award in favor of Badger, the trial court did not specifically base its award on equitable considerations. See generally Tesla Elec., Armature & Mach, Inc. v. JLM Advanced Technical Servs., Inc., 128 So. 3d 865, 866 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013). Rather, the trial court based its imposition of attorneys’ fees against Appellants on the finding that they “presented absolutely no evidence” in support of their claims. Because our ruling necessarily invalidates the trial…
-
The Andersen Firm, PC v. Brown (Fla. 4th DCA 2021)
-
Goodman Distrib., Inc. v. Williams (Fla. 1st DCA 2020)…ind that the trial court erred by denying Goodman’s motion for costs pursuant to section 57.041 because the trial court failed to hold an evidentiary hearing on this matter. See Tesla Elec., Armature & Mach., Inc. v. JLM Advanced Tech. Servs. Inc., 128 So. 3d 865, 866 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (holding that costs under section 57.041 are mandatory and a trial court errs when it does not afford the moving party the opportunity to show that the requested costs were reasonably necessary to its defense at an evidentia…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- In re Guardianship of Albert Sitter. Nicky Valentini v. State, 779 So. 2d 346 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)
- AETNA Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Ciarrochi, 573 So. 2d 990 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)
- Winter Park Imports, Inc. v. JM Fam. Enters., Inc., 77 So. 3d 227 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011)
- Reinke v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 773 So. 2d 592 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)