LION OIL COMPANY, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
TAMARAC LAKES, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, AND ROBERT REYNOLDS D/B/A BAY TO BAY DREDGING, 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.
Lion Oil Company appeals from a judgment awarding attorney's fees to Tamarac Lakes after Lion Oil dismissed its mechanic's lien foreclosure action against Tamarac Lakes. The court affirmed, holding that the trial court properly retained jurisdiction to award reasonable attorney's fees to the prevailing party even after the dismissal removed the defendant as a party.
The trial court retained the power to grant reasonable attorney's fees to the defendant as the prevailing party in a lien enforcement action, even though the notice of dismissal removed the defendant as a party. Section 84.291, F.S. 1965 entitled the defendant, as the prevailing party in an action to enforce a lien, to recover reasonable attorney's fees.
[1] A plaintiff may dismiss an action by filing a notice of dismissal before the adverse party serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment.
[2] A court may retain jurisdiction to award attorney's fees to a prevailing party even after a plaintiff files a notice of dismissal.
Previewing 2 of 3 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 court could have retained the power to grant reasonable attorney's fees to defendant (see Section 84.291, F.S.1965) F.S.A., and in fact the effect of the order herein and the court's subsequent conduct indicates this to be the case.”
Establishes that the trial court retained jurisdiction to award attorney's fees despite the dismissal removing the defendant as a party
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLion Oil Company filed suit on August 5, 1965 to foreclose a mechanic's lien against Tamarac Lakes. Tamarac Lakes filed a motion to dismiss on August …
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 Notice Of Dismissal cases and more on FLexlaw
The plaintiff, Lion Oil Company, Inc., appeals from a final judgment for attorney’s fees entered against it and in favor of defendant, Tamarac Lakes, Inc. We affirm.
This action arose when plaintiff filed suit on 5 August 1965 to foreclose a mechanic’s lien against the defendant.
On 26 August 1965 the defendant, Ta-marac Lakes, filed a motion to dismiss upon which no ruling was entered. On 29 September 1965 plaintiff (pursuant to F.R. *21C.P. 1.35(a) (1), 1965) 1 [now 30 F.S.A. Rule 1.420] filed a notice of dismissal as to Tamarac Lakes.
On 8 October 1965 the lower court transferred the cause to the law side of the docket and further transferred it to the court of record.
After defendant moved for an order awarding it attorney’s fees the court (in the judgment appealed from) granted same in the amount of $100.00 on 27 October 1965.2
By its order of 8 October the lower court transferred this action to another court. This action was ineffectual as to defendant because plaintiff’s notice of dismissal (acquiesced to in the October 8 order) removed defendant as a party. The court could have retained the power to grant reasonable attorney’s fees to defendant (see Section 84.291, F.S.1965) F.S.A., and in fact the effect of the order herein and the court’s subsequent conduct indicates this to be the case. We therefore affirm the judgment appealed from.
Affirmed.
McCAIN, REED and OWEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ronald Jackson and Joanne v. Jackson, 288 So. 2d 564 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974)…ects. Our opinion in Emery should not be construed to mean that one who successfully defends a mechanic’s lien foreclosure cannot recover an attorney’s fee under Section 713.29. [*566] In Lion Oil Co., Inc. v. Tamarac Lakes, Inc., Fla.App.4th, 1970, 232 So. 2d 20, the court affirmed an order awarding the defendant an attorney’s fee following the filing by the plaintiff of a notice of voluntary dismissal of a mechanic’s lien foreclosure action. While there was no “judgment” entered in favor of the party to wh…
-
Gordon v. Warren Heating & AIR Conditioning, Inc., 340 So. 2d 1234 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976)…is the “prevailing party” and is entitled to recover attorney’s fees and costs. Mardan Kitchen Cabinets, Inc. v. Bruns, 312 So. 2d 769 (Fla.3d DCA 1975); Jackson v. Hatch, 288 So. 2d 564 (Fla.2d DCA 1974); Lion Oil Co., Inc. v. Tamarac Lakes, Inc., 232 So. 2d 20 (Fla.4th.DCA 1970). Secondly, the appellant should have been awarded costs and attorney’s fees immediately following dismissal of the first action. The trial court has no authority to defer a ruling on costs pending the outcome of another action. K…
-
Dolphin Towers Condo. Ass'n, Inc. v. DEL Bene, 388 So. 2d 1268 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980)…v. Warren Heating & Air Conditioning, 340 So. 2d 1234 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976); Marden Kitchen Cabinets, Inc. v. Bruns, 312 So. 2d 769 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); Jackson v. Hatch, 288 So. 2d 564 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974); Lion Oil Company, Inc. v. Tamarac Lakes, Inc., 232 So. 2d 20 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970). We hold that the term “prevailing party” in Section 718.303(1) of the Condominium Act should likewise be construed to include a defendant against whom a voluntary dismissal is taken. Further, the fact that the Del Benes filed a…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Hal Meyer v. Contemporary Broad. Co., Inc., 207 So. 2d 325 (Fla. 4th DCA 1968)