LUCIA C.M. TRANTHAM, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF THE ESTATE OF ROY M. TRANTHAM, DECEASED, STANLEY J. CHIRAS, JR., FAITH CHIRAS, M. HOPE HILKER, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF THE ESTATE OF STANLEY E. HILKER, JAMES R. WHITE AND SHELLEY M. WHITE, HUSBAND AND WIFE, STEPHANIE P. CARNEY AND DAN ALAN DEFELICI, APPELLANTS,
v.
NAKED LADY RANCH, INC., A FLORIDA NOT-FOR-PROFIT CORPORATION, AND RONALD AND KAREN BRITTIAN, APPELLEES
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.
Appellants challenged a declaratory relief judgment requiring them to pay for runway paving as a maintenance cost in their aviation community. The court affirmed the attorney's fees award to the prevailing party but reversed $5,380 in fees awarded to the Brittians, who lacked standing under the Declaration's fee-shifting provision.
Appellees were the prevailing party on the most significant issues and properly awarded attorney's fees as the prevailing party. However, the $5,380 in fees awarded for defending the Brittians must be reversed because the Brittians, who were neither 'landowners' nor 'successors' to Naked Lady Ranch, lacked standing to recover fees under the Declaration's attorney's fee provision.
[1] A party is considered the prevailing party when they prevail on the most significant issues in the litigation.
[2] Attorney's fees may be awarded under a declaration of covenants and restrictions to enforce its provisions.
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 trial court determined that appellees prevailed on the most significant issues in the case.”
Establishes the standard for prevailing party status and what the trial court found
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellants were property owners in Naked Lady Ranch, an aviation-centered community with shared maintenance obligations. The community undertook pavin…
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 Prevailing Party cases and more on FLexlaw
CORRECTED OPINION
We affirm the final judgment awarding attorney’s fees and costs in all respects but one.
We find no abuse of discretion in the circuit court’s decision that appellees were the prevailing party in the litigation below. The trial court determined that appellees prevailed on the most significant issues in the case. See Newton v. Tenney, 122 So.3d 390, 392 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013). Our review of the record demonstrates that appellants did not like the idea of a paved runway in their aviation-centered community. At one point, appellants complained that a paved runway would disrupt the rural character of their community. Because they did not want a paved runway, appellants also did pot want to pay for it. Appellants first tendered their resignation to appellee Naked Lady Ranch, which refused to accept it. This led appellants to file a declaratory relief, action. While they did not object to paying them share of maintenance costs and expenses, appellants did not want to pay for “capital improvements,” which is how they characterized the paving of the runway. Ultimately, the trial court determined that the paving of the runway was a¿.maintenance cost, for which appellants were responsible.
Article 5 of the applicable Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions is the attorney’s fee provision. It entitles “any landowner” or Naked Lady Ranch or “its successors” to recover attorney’s fees incurred in the enforcement of “any of the restrictions herein contained.” Count III of the complaint sought to invalidate a loan agreement between appellees Naked Lady Ranch and the Brittians. The final judgment awarded $5,380 in fees incurred in the defense of the Brittians. The Brit-tians were neither a “landowner” nor a “successor” to Naked Lady Ranch, so there was no basis under the Declaration to award attorney’s fees incurred in their defense. We therefore reverse the award of $5,380 in fees. See Village 45 Partners, LLC v. Racetrac Petroleum, Inc., 831 So.2d 758 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002).
We affirm all aspects of the final judgment except for the award of $5,380 in fees.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded.
GROSS, TAYLOR and FORST, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Newton v. Delbert Tenney, 122 So. 3d 390 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)
- Vill. 45 P'rs, LLC. v. Racetrac Petroleum Inc., 831 So. 2d 758 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)