NOREEN SABLOTSKY,

v.

EDUARDO GONZALEZ-HERNANDEZ,

Fla. 3d DCA | 2020-12-02

No. 19-1143

Diaz, J., Miller, J., Gordo, J., Bokor, J.

Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (2020)

Cited by 1 case

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.

Holding

A lender who prevails on significant issues in a breach of promissory note and foreclosure action is entitled to recover attorney's fees even if the loan is found to be usurious.

Headnotes

[1] In a breach of promissory note and foreclosure action, the party that prevails on the significant issues litigated, including obtaining judgment for breach and an order f…

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

Key Quotes

“the party prevailing on the significant issues in the litigation is the party that should be considered the prevailing party for attorney's fees”
Standard for determining prevailing party in attorney's fees disputes

Facts & Procedural History

Sablotsky issued a loan to Gonzalez-Hernandez secured by a promissory note and security interest in property. Gonzalez-Hernandez failed to make paymen…

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Topics

Breach Of Promissory Note Prevailing Party Standard Attorney'S Fees Entitlement Usury

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Breach Of Promissory Note cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed December², 2020. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D19-1143 Lower Tribunal No. 18-5301 ________________

Noreen Sablotsky, Appellant,

vs.

Eduardo Gonzalez-Hernandez, Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Reemberto Diaz, Judge.

Klein Glasser Park & Lowe, P.L., Robert M. Klein and Andrew M. Feldman, for appellant.

Robert P. Lithman, P.A., and Robert P. Lithman (Lake Worth); Law Offices of Jennifer S. Carroll, P.A., and Jennifer S. Carroll (Jupiter), for appellee.

Before MILLER, GORDO and BOKOR, JJ.

GORDO, J.

1 To the extent that Sablotsky appeals the award of fees to Gonzalez-Hernandez, this issue is not yet ripe for this Court’s review, as the trial court merely concluded that Gonzalez-Hernandez was entitled to fees but has not yet set the amount of such fees. See, e.g., Yampol v. Turnberry Isle S. Condo. Ass’n, 250 So. 3d 835, 837 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018) (“An order granting entitlement to attorney’s fees but not determining the amount of fees or costs is a non-final, non-appealable order . . . .” (citing Garcia v. Valladares, 99 So. 3d 518 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011))).

Footnotes

2 Noreen Sablotsky appeals the trial court’s finding, following a bench trial, that the loan she issued to Eduardo Gonzalez-Hernandez was usurious. She also appeals the trial court’s denial of her request for attorney’s fees based on its conclusion that Gonzalez-Hernandez was the prevailing party in the underlying suit. We affirm the trial court’s judgment as to its finding that the loan was usurious without further discussion, Jersey Palm–Gross, Inc. v. Paper, 658 So. 2d 531, 534 (Fla. 1995), but write to address the trial court’s denial of attorney’s fees to Sablotsky. “[A] trial court’s determination of which party prevailed . . . is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.” T & W Devs., Inc. v. Salmonsen, 31 So. 3d 298, 301 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010) (citations omitted). “[T]he party prevailing on the significant issues in the litigation is the party that should be considered the prevailing party for attorney’s fees.” Kapila v. AT&T Wireless Servs., Inc., 973 So. 2d 600, 602 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (quoting Moritz v. Hoyt Enters., Inc., 604 So. 2d 807, 810 (Fla.1992)). Sablotsky filed the underlying case for breach of promissory note and to foreclose on the security interest. The trial court’s judgment was in Sablotsky’s favor inasmuch as the trial court concluded Gonzalez-Hernandez breached the terms of the note by failing to make payments thereon, awarded Sablotsky the full principal amount of the loan, and ordered the sale of the secured property to pay off the sum owed to Sablotsky. As such, Sablotsky prevailed on the significant issues litigated.

3 See Green Cos. v. Kendall Racquetball Inv., Ltd., 658 So. 2d 1119, 1121 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (“In a breach of contract action, one party must prevail.” (citations omitted)). As the prevailing party, she was entitled to recover her attorney’s fees in connection with her efforts to “foreclose[e] the [security interest] for the legally [enforceable] amount of the debt.” Trs. of Cameron-Brown Inv. Grp. v. Tavormina, 385 So. 2d 728, 729 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980) (quoting Wilson v. Conner, 142 So. 606, 609 (Fla. 1932)).1 Thus, we reverse the trial court’s denial of fees to Sablotsky. Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

Kenmort Props. v. Emergency Servs. 24, Inc. (Fla. 3d DCA 2025)

Authorities Cited

Moritz v. Hoyt Enters., Inc., 604 So. 2d 807 (Fla. 1992)
Wilson v. Conner, 106 Fla. 6 (Fla. 1932)
The Green Cos., Inc. v. Kendall Racquetball Inv., Ltd., 658 So. 2d 1119 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)
Trs. OF Cameron-Brown Inv. Grp. v. Tavormina, 385 So. 2d 728 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
Jersey Palm-Gross, Inc. v. Paper, 658 So. 2d 531 (Fla. 1995)
T & W Developers, Inc. v. Salmonsen, 31 So. 3d 298 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010)
Yampol v. Turnberry Isle S. Condo Assoc., 250 So. 3d 835 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018)
Garcia v. In re Valladares, 99 So. 3d 518 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011)
Soneet Kapila for Cellular USA v. AT & T Wireless Servs., Inc., 973 So. 2d 600 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw