KENMORT PROPERTIES, ET AL.
v.
EMERGENCY SERVICES 24, INC.
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.
When a jury verdict results in neither party breaching a contract, a trial court does not abuse its discretion in denying attorney's fees to either party by finding that neither party prevailed.
[1] When a breach of contract action results in a jury verdict finding neither party breached the contract, a trial court does not abuse its discretion in determining that ne…
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 intelligence“[W]here litigation ultimately ends in a proverbial 'tie,' with each party prevailing in part and losing in part on the significant issues in the litigation, a trial court may properly determine that neither party has prevailed for purposes of entitlement to attorney's fees.”
Court's reasoning for affirming denial of attorney's fees
Kenmort Properties and related entities sued Emergency Services 24, Inc. for breach of contract. A jury returned a verdict finding that neither party …
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 Attorney'S Fees cases and more on FLexlaw
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed June 25, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D24-2041 Lower Tribunal No. 13-29262-CA-01 ________________
Kenmort Properties, et al., Appellants,
vs.
Emergency Services 24, Inc., Appellee.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, William Thomas, Judge.
Weiss Serota Helfman Cole & Bierman, P.L., and Richard Rosengarten; Rosengarten Law PLLC, and Ronald M. Rosengarten, for appellants.
No Appearance, for appellee.
Before FERNANDEZ, SCALES and GOODEN, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
2
In this breach of contract case, after the jury returned a verdict finding that neither party breached the parties’ contract, the trial court denied the appellants’1 motion for prevailing party attorney’s fees. We review a trial court’s prevailing party determination for an abuse of discretion. See Sablotsky v. Gonzalez-Hernandez, 314 So. 3d 477, 478 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020). This standard of review requires us to affirm unless we find that no other reasonable jurist would have denied the appellants’ fees motion. See Wal- Mart Stores E., LP v. Pineda, 406 So. 3d 995, 998 (Fla. 3d DCA 2025) (“A trial court abuses its discretion ‘when the judicial action is arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable,’ meaning that no reasonable jurist ‘would take the view adopted by the trial court.’” (quoting Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197, 1203 (Fla. 1980))). Given our highly deferential standard of review, we are compelled to affirm the challenged order. See Radosevich v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon, 245 So. 3d 877, 881 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018) (“[W]here litigation ultimately ends in a proverbial ‘tie,’ with each party prevailing in part and losing in part on the significant issues in the litigation, a trial court may properly determine that neither party has prevailed for purposes of entitlement to attorney’s fees.”); M.A. Hajianpour, M.D., P.A. v. Khosrow
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Baldoria v. Sec. Realty Inv., Inc., 581 So. 2d 189 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)
- Bradley v. Yates, 975 So. 2d 1288 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)
- Duchman v. Da Cunha, 245 So. 3d 877 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018)
- Noreen Sablotsky v. Gonzalez-Hernandez (Fla. 3d DCA 2020)