BULL MOTORS, LLC, ETC., APPELLANT,
v.
ALICIA BORDERS, 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.
Bull Motors appeals an arbitrator's award of $62,000 in attorney's fees and costs to consumer Ms. Borders, who recovered only $5,626 on her FDUTPA claim. The Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that Borders was the prevailing party under FDUTPA and entitled to attorney's fees despite the disproportionate ratio to her actual recovery.
The court affirmed the attorney's fee award. Borders was the prevailing party because she obtained a significant benefit sought in her lawsuit and Maroone asserted no affirmative claims. FDUTPA's attorney's fee provision contains no express requirement of proportionality between the judgment amount and attorney's fees incurred, and the offer of judgment statute does not apply to general offers seeking release of all claims in the case.
[1] A consumer is the prevailing party for attorney's fees under FDUTPA when they recover a judgment and do not assert affirmative claims, even if the attorney's fees awarded…
[2] The offer of judgment statute does not apply to a general offer seeking release of all claims, both equitable and monetary.
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“As Maroone did not assert any affirmative claims, and only Ms. Borders obtained a significant benefit sought in her lawsuit, she was the "prevailing party" under Moritz v. Hoyt Enterprises, Inc.”
Establishes the standard for determining prevailing party status in FDUTPA cases.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMs. Borders brought a consumer arbitration case against Maroone Ford (Bull Motors) alleging violations of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Pract…
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 Offer Of Judgment Statute cases and more on FLexlaw
Bull Motors, LLC, doing business as Maroone Ford of Miami (Maroone), appeals an award of attorney’s fees and costs totaling $62,000.00 in a consumer arbitration case in which the appellee, Ms. Borders, was awarded $5,626.00. We affirm.
The arbitrator found that Maroone had violated the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA)1 and that Ms. Borders was the prevailing party for purposes of FDUTPA’s attorney’s fee provision.2 Ultimately, both parties retained and deposed opposing expert witnesses regarding Ms. Borders’ attorney’s billings, hourly rate, and results obtained. The trial court reviewed those transcripts and exhibits, and then considered legal memo-randa and argument regarding an appropriate award of attorney’s fees and costs at a one-hour hearing.
On appeal, Maroone argues that (1) Maroone prevailed on some of Ms. Borders’ claims, such that an evidentiary hearing and a reduction were required, and (2) the trial court erred in refusing to consider an early settlement proposal by Maroone that exceeded Ms. Borders’ ultimate recovery. On Maroone’s first point, however, the transcript of the attorney’s fee hearing demonstrates that the parties submitted, and the court considered, competent substantial evidence (expert witness deposition transcripts, hourly time records, and hourly fees for similar cases). The court reduced the claim for attorney’s fees by over one-half.3
*1160As Maroone did not assert any affirmative claims, and only Ms. Borders obtained a significant benefit sought in her lawsuit, she was the “prevailing party” under Moritz v. Hoyt Enterprises, Inc., 604 So.2d 807, 809-10 (Fla.1992). FDUTPA’s attorney’s fee provision recognizes the policy of protecting consumers from unfair and deceptive trade practices and the need to attract private attorneys to take such cases by assuring them of a legal fee proportionate to their efforts if their clients prevail. Diamond Aircraft Indus., Inc. v. Horowitch, 107 So.3d 362, 367-68 (Fla.2013). Such an award requires that the client prevail by recovering a judgment and, if there are counterclaims, by recovering a net judgment in the entire case. Id. at 368 (quoting Heindel v. Southside Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., 476 So.2d 266, 270 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)). There is no express requirement of proportionality between the amount of the FDUTPA judgment and the attorney’s fees and costs incurred in obtaining that judgment.
Maroone’s second argument is also unpersuasive. Maroone’s offers of judgment addressed Ms. Borders’ claim for equitable relief as well as her claims for damages. The offer of judgment statute, section 768.79, Florida Statutes (2007), does not apply to cases that, as here, involve a general offer seeking release of all claims in the case, both equitable and monetary. Diamond Aircraft Indus., Inc., 107 So.3d at 374.
For these reasons, we affirm the trial court’s orders awarding attorney’s fees and costs to Ms. Borders.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Banner v. LAW Off. OF David J. Stern, P.A., 198 So. 3d 1133 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016)…501, part II claim, and (2) recover a net judgment in the entire case.” 476 So. 2d at 270. The defendants here did not prevail on the entire case, so they are not entitled to recover fees under section 501.2105. See also Bull Motors, LLC v. Borders, 132 So. 3d 1158, 1160 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) (recognizing the requirement that a section 501.2105 recovery requires that a party recover “a net judgment in the entire case”). This application of the statute is consistent with the purposes of FDUTPA set forth in sectio…
Authorities Cited
- Moritz v. Hoyt Enters., Inc., 604 So. 2d 807 (Fla. 1992)
- Diamond Aircraft Indus., Inc. v. Horowitch, 107 So. 3d 362 (Fla. 2013)
- Heindel v. Southside Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., 476 So. 2d 266 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)