COUNTRY CLUB OF MIAMI CONDO ASSOC.
v.
GRACIA
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.
A trial court does not abuse its discretion in denying attorney's fees to a party where the case is dismissed for mootness unrelated to the merits rather than on a favorable judgment on the merits.
[1] A prevailing party is not entitled to attorney's fees where a case is dismissed as moot rather than on the merits, particularly when the defendant has raised affirmative…
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“Where, as here, the unit owner denies each and every material allegation in a complaint for injunctive relief and, additionally, interposes affirmative defenses . . . which, if proved at time of trial, would have precluded the Association from obtaining the relief requested, we have no basis for concluding that the Association was the prevailing party where the dismissal for mootness was unrelated to the merits of the case.”
Court's reasoning citing Del Valle v. Biltmore II Condo. Ass'n, Inc.
Country Club of Miami Condominium Association sued Naidima Gracia and others, seeking injunctive relief. Gracia denied the material allegations and in…
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 Adequate Record On Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
MILLER, J.
As we have no basis for concluding the trial court abused its discretion in denying appellant’s motion for entitlement to attorney’s fees, we affirm. See Kelsey v. Metro Constr., 31 So. 3d 252, 254 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (“The standard of review for prevailing party attorney’s fees is abuse of discretion.” (citation omitted)); see also Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150, 1152 (Fla. 1979) (“Without a[n adequate] record . . . the appellate court can not properly resolve the underlying factual issues so as to conclude that the trial court’s judgment is not supported by the evidence or by an alternative theory.
Without knowing the factual context, neither can an appellate court reasonably conclude that the trial judge so misconceived the law as to require reversal.”); Del Valle v. Biltmore II Condo. Ass’n, Inc., 411 So. 2d 1356, 1358 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982) (“Where, as here, the unit owner denies each and every material allegation in a complaint for injunctive relief and, additionally, interposes affirmative defenses . . . which, if proved at time of trial, would have precluded the Association from obtaining the relief requested, we have no basis for concluding that the Association was the prevailing party where the dismissal for mootness was unrelated to the merits of the case.”).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Pitcher v. Schneider (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)
- Albert v. Applegate et ux., 377 So. 2d 1150 (Fla. 1979)
- DEL Valle v. Biltmore II Condo. Ass'n, Inc., 411 So. 2d 1356 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- Kelsey v. Metro Constr., 31 So. 3d 252 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)