HOUGH ROOFING, INC., APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE,
v.
DON FACCIOBENE, INC. AND DIGIACINTO HOLDINGS, LLC, APPELLEES/CROSS-APPELLANTS
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.
Hough Roofing, a subcontractor, appeals the trial court's denial of attorney's fees after winning a breach of contract claim against general contractor Don Facciobene. The appellate court reverses, holding that Hough Roofing was the prevailing party and entitled to attorney's fees under the subcontract's fee-shifting provision.
HRI was the prevailing party and entitled to attorney's fees. Although DFI prevailed on its counterclaim, the minimal recovery ($180 versus $7,378.80 requested) was insufficient to overcome HRI's substantial victory on its primary breach of contract claim.
[1] A party is considered the prevailing party in a breach of contract action when they are awarded damages on their claim, even if the opposing party is awarded a small amou…
[2] A party who successfully proves a breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing is considered a prevailing party for the purpose of attorney's fees.
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“in a breach of contract action one party must prevail in the absence of compelling circumstances”
Establishes the legal standard that typically one party achieves prevailing party status in breach of contract cases
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHough Roofing (HRI), a licensed subcontractor, was hired by Don Facciobene, Inc. (DFI), a licensed general contractor, to perform roofing work. DFI fa…
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 Attorney'S Fees Provision cases and more on FLexlaw
Hough Roofing, Inc. (HRI), a licensed subcontractor, appeals and Don Facciob-ene, Inc. (DFI), a licensed general contractor, cross-appeals the trial court’s order denying their respective motions for attor*323ney’s fees after a non-jury trial on HRI’s breach of contract claim against DFI and DFI’s counterclaim against HRI. Because HRI was the prevailing party on significant issues below, we reverse the order denying its request for attorney’s fees. As to DFI’s cross-appeal, we affirm.
The underlying case involved a breach of contract claim filed by HRI against DFI for DFI’s failure to pay HRI for roofing work it was subcontracted to perform and, in fact, completed, as well as a counterclaim filed by DFI against HRI for work performed to repair a leak in the roof due to faulty installation by HRI. The trial court denied both parties’ motions for attorney’s fees finding that the subcontract’s attorney’s fees provision cannot apply retroactively before the subcontract was executed and that when applied prospectively neither party prevailed on significant issues. This was error.1
Although there may be circumstances where neither party is the prevailing party, that is not the case here. See Trytek v. Gale Indus., Inc., 3 So.3d 1194, 1201 (Fla. 2009) (quoting Prosperi v. Code, Inc., 626 So.2d 1360, 1362 (Fla. 1993)); Hutchinson v. Hutchinson, 687 So.2d 912, 913 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (citing Lucite Ctr., Inc. v. Mercede, 606 So.2d 492 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)) (finding that, in a breach of contract action one party must prevail in the absence of compelling circumstances).
At trial, HRI was the prevailing party based on the trial court’s finding that DFI breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and because HRI was entitled to recover damages when it had been paid nothing by DFI before that point. While DFI prevailed on its counterclaim, the $180 it was awarded was only a small fraction of its $7378.80 request, and it was not substantial enough to override the outcome on HRI’s complaint. See id. (quoting Prosperi, 626 So.2d at 1362); Scutti v. Daniel E. Adache & Assocs Architects, P.A., 515 So.2d 1023, 1024 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987); Kirou v. Oceanside Plaza Condo. Ass’n, 425 So.2d 650, 651 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983).
Accordingly, we reverse the order denying HRI’s motion for attorney’s fees and remand for the trial court to determine the amount. In all other respects, we affirm.
AFFIRMED, in part, REVERSED, in part, and REMANDED. .
WALLIS and LAMBERT, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
DON Facciobene, Inc. v. Hough Roofing, Inc., 225 So. 3d 323 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017)…e appeal, HRI challenged the trial court’s order denying its motion for attorney’s fees for the trial proceedings. DFI filed a cross-appeal claiming that it was entitled to attorney’s fees. Hough Roofing, Inc. v. Don Facciobene, Inc., No. 5D15-2878, 225 So. 3d 322, 2017 WL 3091223 (Fla. 5th DCA July 21, 2017). . This amount included $10,720 for metal roofing panels, $4100 for plywood sheathing, $3590 for the'flat roof and base sheet, $2635 for thirty-one pitch pockets, $275 for eleven torch patches, and $105…
Authorities Cited
- Prosperi v. Code, Inc., 626 So. 2d 1360 (Fla. 1993)
- Trytek v. Gale Indus., Inc., 3 So. 3d 1194 (Fla. 2009)
- Candyce E. Hutchinson v. Hutchinson, 687 So. 2d 912 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)
- Lucite Ctr., Inc. v. Mercede, 606 So. 2d 492 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)
- Kirou v. Oceanside Plaza Condo. Ass'n, Inc., 425 So. 2d 650 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- F.V. Scutti v. Daniel E. Adache & Assocs. Architects, P.A., 515 So. 2d 1023 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)
- DON Facciobene, Inc. v. Hough Roofing, Inc., 225 So. 3d 323 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017)